transaction details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response bundles transaction, receipt and decoding data, which is useful beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about failure behavior for unknown or pending hashes, rate limits, or whether the decode step can fail independently.

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, and the key resource is named first. It is perhaps over-compressed for a tool that returns three distinct data sets, but nothing is wasted.

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 one required parameter, no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the definition is minimally viable. However, it does not clarify what the response contains, whether all three components are always returned, or how partial decoding is signalled — gaps that matter for a multi-part read tool.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema constrains it with a 0x-prefixed 64-hex pattern, though it has no description field (0% coverage). The description names "transaction hash" as the key, which adds the semantic label the schema lacks, but carries no format or example detail beyond the pattern. Baseline 3 is appropriate for a single well-typed parameter.

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 verb ("Read") and resources (transaction, receipt, Blockscout decoding) keyed by transaction hash. It is distinguishable from siblings like decode_event_logs or address_history_page, though bundling three outputs into one terse phrase leaves the exact scope slightly ambiguous.

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 mention of transaction hash implies the lookup context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of alternatives (e.g. decode_event_logs for logs, block_details for block context), and no stated prerequisites such as needing a confirmed/mined transaction.

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