Transaction Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds context about the data source (ORDnet's own node), polling behavior, and return fields. This goes beyond the annotations, though rate limits or error behavior are not mentioned.

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 concise, well-structured, and front-loaded. It includes a clear purpose line, usage guidance, args, and returns in a scannable format with no wasted 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?

For a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. The return field list compensates for the missing output schema, making the behavior fully understandable.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter txid, and the description only restates the schema's 'Transaction ID' description without adding new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 checks transaction status and confirmations via ORDnet's own node, a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on status checking, separate from send/transfer/broadcast operations.

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?

Explicitly says this is essential after ordnet_send, ordnet_inscribe_broadcast, and ordnet_transfer, and directs the user to poll it for confirmation. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and implies repeated use.

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