Check a settlement transaction

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure, and it does well by stating that this is a lookup operation (no mutation implied) and by listing exactly what the agent will get back. It could go further by explicitly saying it is read-only and has no side effects, but 'Look up' and the lack of any write verb make the behavior clear.

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, tightly worded sentence of about 18 words. It front-loads the action ('Look up') and the required input ('by hash'), then lists the three report values without any filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter lookup tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema. The description tells the agent what the return will contain (success, confirmations, explorer URL), which is all that is needed to interpret the result. No complex state, side effects, or multi-step behavior needs explanation.

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%, so the schema already documents the 32-byte hash format and the default network. The description adds no extra meaning beyond calling it a 'Robinhood Chain transaction,' which is already reflected in the title and network enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the heavy lifting is done by the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Look up'), names the exact resource ('Robinhood Chain transaction'), and identifies the key identifier ('by hash'). It also states the concrete outputs (success status, confirmations, explorer URL), which leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does. The title 'Check a settlement transaction' reinforces the purpose, and none of the sibling tools overlap with this behavior.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you have a transaction hash and need settlement status, confirmation count, or an explorer link. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling tools are distinct enough that no disambiguation is required. A full 'when-not-to-use' statement is absent, which keeps it from a 5.

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