Safe tx hash

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

Annotations already mark it readOnly and openWorld. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it computes locally and performs an on-chain cross-check, and it clarifies the tool's verification purpose. It still omits failure modes and the shape of the comparison result.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the verification purpose follows immediately.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should say what is returned (the hash and/or the cross-check result), and it does not. With 7 params at 29% schema coverage and a subtle cross-check behavior, the definition leaves meaningful gaps an agent would hit at call time.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 29% across 7 parameters, and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all (no explanation of to/value/data/operation/safe semantics or the hash fields being signed). With low coverage, the description was expected to compensate and does not.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: compute the EIP-712 safeTxHash for a Safe transaction, and names the exact on-chain counterpart (getTransactionHash) it cross-checks against. This clearly distinguishes it from generic siblings like eip712_hash and safe_info.

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?

Gives a concrete use case (verify what a signer should see on their hardware wallet), which tells the agent when this tool is the right choice. It does not name alternatives or exclusions versus eip712_hash or decode_safe_calldata, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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