payments_get_transaction_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as expected response format, authentication requirements, or any side effects. It simply restates the action without enriching what the annotations already tell us. No contradiction, but no added value.

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 extremely concise, but it is under-specified. It does not earn its place because it adds no value beyond the tool name. It is not verbose, but it is too brief to be considered appropriately sized. A one-line description that merely restates the name does not satisfy the requirement for front-loading useful information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, when it might fail, or any contextual nuances. The schema covers parameter meanings, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of an output schema or to provide any operational context. For a simple get tool, this is still insufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are described in the schema, including transactionId, altId, altType, and locationId. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and since the description contributes nothing extra, it remains at 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 'Get Transaction by ID' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (transaction by ID), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like payments_get_order_by_id or payments_get_subscription_by_id, and it omits context about what constitutes a 'transaction' in this domain. It is clear but not specific enough to distinguish among similar get-by-ID tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative tools. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or alternatives. An agent would have no indication of why to choose this over other payments-related get operations, such as payments_get_order_by_id. This is a complete absence of usage guidance.

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