get_shop_transactions_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the important exactly-one-of constraint between the two ID parameters. It says nothing about permissions, error behavior when both or neither ID is supplied, or rate limits, and does not explicitly confirm this is a read-only lookup.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed immediately by the constraint and the shop scoping. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation here. For a zero-annotation read tool with undocumented parameters, the description covers purpose, the key exclusivity constraint, and shop scoping adequately; only sibling differentiation and failure modes are missing.

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 0% and all three parameters lack inline documentation, so the description must compensate. It does: it defines the exclusive relationship between order_id and statement_id and explains that seller_name selects the shop, though it omits ID formats and confirms nothing about optionality.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get transaction details') and scopes it to an order or statement, which is more precise than a bare name restatement. However, it does not distinguish itself from the close sibling get_order_detail_tool, leaving the agent to infer which one to call for order data.

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?

Gives a concrete usage rule: provide exactly one of order_id or statement_id, plus how to scope by shop via seller_name. This is real guidance not derivable from the schema (both params are nullable with no 'required'). It stops short of naming alternatives such as get_order_detail_tool.

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