hive_transaction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it preserves every operation and signature, decodes custom JSON, counts gift-card items separately, and explicitly states it does not establish game processing or irreversibility. It also notes 'One read-only RPC', which is useful operational context. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action, the second adds key behavioral details, and the third clarifies limitations and RPC cost. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids redundancy with annotations.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers the main purpose, key behaviors, and a limitation. It does not describe the return format or output structure, but there is no output schema, and the description's mention of 'count recognized gift-card items separately' gives some hint of the response. The absence of explicit alternatives or error conditions is a minor gap, but overall the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 must compensate. The description explains what the tool does with the transaction ID (reads full signed transaction, decodes custom JSON, counts gift-card items) but does not add specific parameter-level details beyond the schema's pattern. The single parameter trx_id is well-defined by the schema pattern, and the description implies its use. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema defines the parameter format clearly, and the description adds functional context but no additional 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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('full signed Hive transaction by transaction ID'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like transaction_inspect and transaction_lookup by emphasizing preservation of every operation/signature and custom JSON decoding. It clearly identifies what the tool does and its scope.

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 when to use this tool: when a full signed transaction with all operations and signatures is needed, and when custom JSON/gift-card item counts are relevant. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context signals and sibling list suggest transaction_inspect/transaction_lookup as related tools. It provides clear context but no explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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