get_transaction_info_by_id

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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds the specific receipt contents returned. This is useful but does not go beyond annotation coverage to disclose edge cases, authorization requirements, or rate limits, making it adequate but not exceptional.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the purpose and key output fields without any redundant or extraneous wording. It is concise and well structured.

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 query tool, the description covers the essential return values and the annotations disclose the read-only nature. It does not describe the response format or error handling, but these are minor omissions given the tool's simplicity and lack of an output schema.

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 input schema already documents both parameters with clear descriptions (transaction hash and network). The description does not add any additional parameter semantics, so it relies entirely on schema coverage, which is at 100%.

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 tool queries a transaction receipt and enumerates specific fields (energy usage, fee, logs, confirmation status) by transaction hash. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similarly named siblings like get_transaction_info or get_transaction_by_id, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description states what it does but does not mention when it is preferred or excluded, leaving the agent without decision support.

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