get_attestation_by_tx

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It indicates a read-only operation (returns a record) but does not mention authentication, rate limits, or error conditions. This is adequate but not richly transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, 22 words, no redundancy. Every word adds value; the description is efficiently structured and front-loaded with the core action.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return content (full attestation record, scored address, trust score, on-chain details). It is nearly complete, though it omits potential constraints like data freshness or pagination (likely not needed).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% parameter descriptions, so the tool description must compensate. It adds meaning by stating the parameter is a 'transaction hash', which is essential context beyond the regex pattern. This provides sufficient clarity for the single parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (look up) and the resource (attestation by transaction hash). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_attestations (which likely returns multiple) by specifying a single lookup via hash.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context: when you have a transaction hash, use this tool. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the intent is evident from the sibling list where get_attestations handles broader queries.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.