View Transaction

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

Annotations already declare the full safe profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description need not re-state safety. It adds only 'human-readable format', which is useful but thin; it does not mention whether the file must exist, how errors are surfaced, or any path/permission constraints.

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?

Front-loaded and short, with the purpose in the first sentence. The Args/Returns blocks largely duplicate the schema and 'Returns: Transaction details' is low-value, but overall there is little waste.

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?

With a full safety annotation set and a single fully-documented parameter, the main remaining gap is the return value, and with no output schema the description only says 'Transaction details.' That is adequate but not complete enough to tell an agent what fields to expect.

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% and there is a single parameter, so the schema fully documents tx_file. The description merely restates 'Path to the transaction file' without adding format, extension, or path-resolution semantics. 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?

States a specific verb (display) and resource (contents of a transaction file) with the added qualifier 'human-readable'. It distinguishes itself reasonably from the build/sign/submit siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with cardano_transaction_txid or the other transaction-family tools.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for inspecting an existing transaction file, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to alternatives like cardano_transaction_txid or cardano_query_tx_mempool.

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