near_get_transaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description does not explicitly state safety, failure behavior (e.g., not found), or any side effects. It lacks detail on what 'details' includes or any edge cases.

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, five-word sentence that is concise and front-loaded. Every word adds value, with no redundant filler or verbose explanation.

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?

The tool is a simple getter with a clear input schema, but there is no output schema or additional context about return values or error cases. The description is minimally viable—it tells the agent what the tool does, but it does not elaborate on the transaction details format or any special behavior, leaving some ambiguity for a moderately complex chain (NEAR).

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%, with both parameters (txHash and senderAccountId) already documented. The description adds little beyond the schema—'by hash' restates txHash's description and does not explain why senderAccountId is required or how it relates to the hash. Thus, it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 verb ('Get'), the resource ('transaction details'), and the key lookup criterion ('by hash'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like near_get_balance or near_view_function, and the chain is evident from the tool name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as near_get_block, near_get_access_keys, or near_view_function. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

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