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

The description repeats 'Read-only', matching the annotation, but adds meaningful behavior beyond it: journal lines are null when not yet booked, and provenance/evidence documents are included. It accurately reflects the read-only nature and introduces useful null-state detail.

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 front-loaded with 'full story' and presents a compact field list, then a focused line about transaction_id provenance. It is slightly long but all clauses contribute meaningful information; only 'Read-only' is redundant with the annotation.

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?

With an output schema present, return values do not need extensive explanation, and the description still covers the null-booking behavior and the origin of transaction_id. Combined with the annotation and schema, including org_id defaults and rejection rules, the agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3 wagered. The description adds value by defining transaction_id as a classified event id and listing the exact upstream tools that can provide it, which the schema alone does not convey.

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 identifies the resource as a single transaction/classified event and enumerates what it returns. It separates this tool from sibling list/summary tools by emphasizing 'full story of one transaction', making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly states where transaction_id comes from (get_unreviewed_events, list_documents matched_event_id, or a proposal candidate), which tells an agent when this tool is the next step. It does not name an alternative tool to use instead for other purposes, but the single-transaction framing provides sufficient context.

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