get_transaction_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a read-only existence check and retrieves amount/status, which is useful. However, it does not mention what happens if the reference is not found, whether any side effects occur, or any permissions needed. The behavioral traits are partially disclosed but not fully.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the key purpose and expected output. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or padding.

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 simple lookup tool with two parameters (one required) and full schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what the tool does and what it returns (open amount and status). The absence of an output schema is somewhat mitigated by the explicit mention of the retrieved fields. Missing details about error handling are acceptable for such a basic read operation.

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 covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions (reference format and default for administrationId). The description adds little beyond what the schema already states, only reinforcing that 'reference' refers to the invoice reference and that the output includes open amount and status. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: check if an outstanding invoice with a given reference exists and retrieve its current open amount and status. It uses specific verbs ('check', 'retrieve') and specifies the resource (outstanding item/invoice), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_transactions or get_transaction_document.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to verify an invoice's existence and get its current open amount/status) but provides no explicit alternatives or exclusions. It does not mention that other tools like get_sales_invoices or get_purchase_invoices might be alternatives, so guidance is only implicit.

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