Look up a Pi transaction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds 'Reads public ledger data only', reinforcing the read-only nature and clarifying the data scope. This adds value beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 three sentences, each adding value: function and outputs, usage rationale, and safety note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter), the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is fully sufficient. It explains what it does, when to use it, and that it is read-only.

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%, and the schema describes the 'hash' parameter with pattern and type. The description merely says 'by its hash', which adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 the tool's function: 'Look up a single Pi transaction by its hash' and enumerates the reported fields (success, ledger, submitter, fee, memo). This specific verb+resource structure distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_wallet_balance or get_account_payments.

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 an explicit use case: 'Call this to verify that a specific transaction actually went through' and contrasts it with unverified claims. It gives clear context for when to use this tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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