get_transaction_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the 'sent Base transaction' scope and the reverted-reason decoding, but most of its content describes return values rather than behavior 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 purpose and the full list of reported fields are front-loaded in one dense sentence, with the usage rule following. The enumeration is long but each item is informative, and there is no 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be restated in full, and the description still covers what an agent must know: when to call it and what it reports. For a single-parameter read tool with complete annotations, it is essentially 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the meaning of 'hash'. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Report what a sent Base transaction did') and enumerates the exact outcomes (pending, succeeded, reverted, not found). It is clearly distinguishable from lookup-style siblings such as get_receipt or get_auction_state.

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?

It gives explicit sequencing guidance: 'Use it after sending the steps from prepare_action to confirm each one before the next,' naming the sibling that produces the inputs. It does not state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous.

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