decode_transaction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the scope (raw Bitcoin hex, components) but does not mention what happens on invalid hex, return format, or any edge cases. Without annotations, this would be insufficient, but with them it is adequate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose in 10 words. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary filler.

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 read-only tool with one well-documented parameter and clear annotations, the description provides sufficient context. It could mention the exact return format or error handling, but the lack of an output schema is mitigated by the 'inputs, outputs, etc.' phrasing. The complexity is low, so the description is nearly complete.

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 100% for the single raw_transaction parameter, so the schema already provides full meaning. The description does not add any parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema states, keeping this at the baseline.

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 decodes a raw Bitcoin transaction hex into its components, naming inputs and outputs. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from general compose/send tools. While unpack_transaction may appear similar, the explicit focus on raw Bitcoin transaction hex makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 the tool (whenever raw transaction hex needs decoding) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like unpack_transaction. Given the sibling list includes unpack_transaction, some usage guidance would be valuable, but the intent is still inferable.

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