Status of a transaction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the possible status values and the fact that results are enriched with the originating swap/launch. It stops short of saying what happens for an unknown or non-justi signature (error vs. bare status), which is the one remaining behavioral question.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the status enumeration and the justi.fun scoping caveat each 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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (status values plus associated swap/launch) and the input scope. Only the edge-case behavior for unrecognized signatures is left unstated.

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 0%, but the JSON schema's base58 pattern already constrains the format; the description contributes the important semantic point that the parameter accepts ANY Solana signature, not only justi.fun-built ones, which prevents an agent from wrongly narrowing its use. It does not add format or example details, but the pattern covers that.

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 resource – the status of any Solana signature – and enumerates the full result space (pending, confirmed, finalized, failed, unknown) plus the enrichment (associated swap or launch). No sibling tool does anything comparable, so an agent can distinguish it from justi_recent_trades or justi_quote without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the phrase 'when it was built through justi.fun' signals this is the follow-up check after justi_build_swap or justi_build_launch, but the description never says when to call it or what to do instead for non-justi transactions. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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