get_transaction_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool is for polling and lists possible status values. However, it does not mention potential behaviors such as rate limits, timeout, or response format, which would be helpful for a polling tool.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the purpose and provides necessary details concisely.

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's low complexity (1 parameter, no enums, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and possible return values, enabling an agent to use it correctly.

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 parameter. The tool description adds context about the parameter's origin ('returned by execute_swap or other transaction tools'), but this is already implied in the schema. With full coverage, the baseline is 3.

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 function: 'Returns the current status of a submitted transaction.' It specifies the verb (Returns) and resource (status of a submitted transaction), and distinguishes from siblings by listing the tools that produce transaction IDs to poll.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Poll this after execute_swap, transfer_token, deposit_aave, or withdraw_aave.' It provides a list of status values, giving clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the usage is well-defined.

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