agirails_get_transaction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to cover safety. It adds value by listing the specific data returned (status, escrow balance, next action hint, metadata), providing more behavioral context 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 a single sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the key action and output, and contains no unnecessary words.

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 the tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and safe annotations, the description covers the main purpose and return information. It could mention the network parameter's purpose or the snippet's format, but it is still sufficient for a simple getter 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?

With 50% schema description coverage, the schema already documents txId and network parameters. The description does not add new semantics beyond the schema, but it does not detract either. Baseline 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 it returns a TypeScript snippet with full transaction details (status, escrow balance, next action hint, metadata) and specifies the action 'check what state a transaction is in.' This distinguishes it from other sibling tools like agirails_accept_quote or agirails_cancel.

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 explicitly says 'Use to check what state a transaction is in,' which gives clear usage context. It does not mention when not to use or list alternatives, but the read-only nature is evident from annotations and sibling names, making the guidance adequate.

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