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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the external-transaction scoping, which is useful but does not add deeper behavioral context such as pagination behavior, default chain handling, or result variability.

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 states the core action and resource with no filler. The '(external)' clarification is packed efficiently into the main clause.

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?

Although the tool has seven parameters and no output schema, the schema documents all parameters thoroughly and annotations cover safety and idempotence. The description adds the essential semantic distinction between external and internal transactions, which is enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly for the common use case.

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 all seven parameters are already documented with types, constraints, and descriptions. The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond restating the address focus, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('list of normal (external) transactions'), and the scope ('for an address'). The parenthetical '(external)' usefully distinguishes this from internal-transaction tools, so the agent immediately knows what kind of data to expect.

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 clear context that this tool returns external transactions only, which implicitly excludes internal transactions and points toward the sibling get_internal_transactions. It does not explicitly name an alternative or state when-not-to-use, but the external/internal distinction is enough to guide selection in most cases.

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