Read the transaction record

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial extra behavioral detail: ordering by 'predecessor reference rather than by a counter', the concept of a 'broken' chain, and the specific error code 'A202-EVIDENCE-CHAIN-GAP'. This goes well beyond the 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 two sentences, but the first is a long, dense list of contents. Every clause adds value, but the structure could be slightly improved by splitting into bullet points. It is generally efficient and information-dense.

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 no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating what the record contains (events, state, keys, object), how ordering works, and how broken chains are reported. It is comprehensive for a read-only tool, though it could mention the exact return format (e.g., JSON structure) to be fully 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?

The schema already covers the only parameter (transaction_id) with 100% coverage, including the prefix constraint 'txn_'. The description adds no extra parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Return this party's own copy of the hash-chained transaction record'. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies the resource, and the unique phrasing 'own copy' and 'hash-chained' differentiates it from sibling tools like verify_evidence or create_agreement.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use: 'Call it at any point to see where a transaction stands before deciding what to do next.' This gives clear context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, which would be required for a 5.

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