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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds a little context via address/txhash lookup modes, but says nothing about rate limits, data availability, pagination behavior, or response structure, and it does not contradict the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that names the resource and the two primary lookup modes without filler. It repeats nothing from the schema and earns every word.

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?

For a read-only list tool with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description is sufficient for basic invocation: it tells the agent the resource and the two access paths. It does not explicitly state the return shape or enforce that address/txhash are mutually exclusive, but neither omission prevents a reasonable agent from selecting and calling the tool.

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 schema already has 100% parameter description coverage, so the description is not required to explain each field. The address-vs-txhash distinction is present in both the schema and the description, and the description adds no new format, default, or mutual-exclusivity detail beyond 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get internal transactions') and identifies two query modes: by address or by parent transaction hash. It is clear and distinct from the sibling get_transactions by the word 'internal' and the mention of 'parent transaction hash,' though it does not explicitly contrast itself with that sibling.

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 gives no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_transactions, get_logs, or get_transaction_by_hash. It only describes what the tool does, not when it should be used and when it should not.

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