get_transaction_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the auth requirement (any Floe API key) and the verb 'Check' implies a read-only operation. However, it doesn't disclose what statuses are returned or behavior on invalid hashes, which would be useful.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The first states the core purpose, the second provides essential auth context. Both sentences earn their place.

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 single-parameter tool without output schema, the description is adequately complete for invocation. It covers what the tool does and the auth prerequisite. It could mention the return statuses, but the tool name and simplicity make this a minor gap.

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 fully documents the single parameter (transaction_hash with pattern and description). The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Check status' and identifies the resource as 'a submitted transaction'. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like broadcast_transaction (which submits) and simulate_transaction (which simulates). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 clearly states a prerequisite: requires any Floe API key, which is important for usage. It implies use after a transaction is submitted, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use. Still, the context is reasonably clear.

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