midl_get_transaction_receipt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing it as a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the return fields (status, gas used, logs) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as potential rate limits or dependency on transaction existence.

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, front-loading the essential information. It is free of extraneous content and every word serves a purpose.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, annotations present), the description adequately covers the return fields. It could optionally mention that a valid transaction hash is required, but the schema already enforces validity via pattern matching.

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?

The tool has only one parameter ('hash') which is fully described in the input schema (including pattern and description). The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline expectation.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('EVM transaction receipt'), and the included fields ('status, gas used, and logs'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'midl_get_transaction' which likely returns basic transaction data without the receipt-level 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 implies usage for retrieving transaction receipts but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'midl_get_transaction' or 'midl_get_logs'. No exclusions or conditions are provided.

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