getUserOperationByHash

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only states the purpose and does not mention any behavioral traits such as idempotency, error conditions, rate limits, or what constitutes 'details'. The agent cannot infer safety or side effects.

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 of 10 words, which is highly concise. It efficiently conveys the core purpose. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description could have included more value in the same space without being verbose.

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?

Despite low complexity (2 simple params, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return value (what 'details' are included) or any usage constraints. With an output schema absent, the agent is left without key information about what to expect after invocation.

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 coverage is 100% as both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional context beyond what the schema already provides. For example, it does not explain how to obtain the 'userOpHash' or the range of valid 'network' values. Baseline is 3 due to full schema coverage.

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 'Get details of an ERC-4337 user operation by its hash', using a specific verb ('Get details'), a well-defined resource ('ERC-4337 user operation'), and the unique identifier ('hash'). This cleanly differentiates from sibling tools like 'getUserOperationReceipt' which presumably returns the receipt, not the operation details.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getUserOperationReceipt' or 'estimateUserOperationGas'. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision-making help.

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