nayori_tx_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds specific behavioral context by listing the possible statuses and the Clarity result, beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction.

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 succinct sentences with zero wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the usage hint is appended naturally.

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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description adequately states what it returns (statuses + Clarity result). It could detail the output structure, but for a simple status check this is sufficient.

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%, so the description should compensate. It only repeats 'by txid' without explaining the format or meaning beyond the parameter name. The schema's regex pattern provides the format, but the description adds no value for parameter semantics.

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 the specific verb 'Check' and names the resource 'a Stacks mainnet transaction by txid', and explicitly lists the outcomes (pending, success, abort) and the additional Clarity result. This is precise and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform write actions.

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?

It explicitly states 'Use after any write tool', giving a clear when-to-use condition. It does not mention alternatives, but no sibling tool serves the same purpose, so the guidance is sufficient.

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