Run Transaction Report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, read-only behavior. The description adds that the tool 'orchestrates' actions like waiting and inspection, which are non-destructive. However, it does not elaborate on potential side effects, error conditions, or performance implications beyond what annotations cover. The description is consistent with annotations, but adds limited behavioral context.

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 sentence that concisely conveys the tool's function. It is front-loaded with the key purpose. However, it could be slightly streamlined or structured to improve readability, but overall it is efficient without unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description should explain what the report contains. It lists components (waiting, inspection, status explanation, optional trace lookup, contract snapshot) but does not specify the format, structure, or how results are returned. For a tool that generates a report, this leaves ambiguity about the output, making it less complete.

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 100% with all seven parameters documented. The description mentions 'optional trace lookup' and 'optional contract snapshot,' but no trace parameter exists in the schema; the contract snapshot maps to the address parameter. The description adds some high-level context but does not significantly enhance understanding of individual parameters beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 orchestrates multiple actions (waiting, inspection, status explanation, optional trace lookup, optional contract snapshot) into a single transaction report. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like genlayer_inspect_transaction, genlayer_wait_for_transaction, and genlayer_trace_transaction by offering a consolidated report rather than individual steps.

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 implies usage for generating a comprehensive report by combining multiple operations, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the individual sibling tools. There is no guidance on prerequisites, alternatives, or conditions where this tool is preferred or not recommended.

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