get_transaction_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the file is returned as base64 and that the response includes fileName and fileData, which is transparent about the output format and structure. It does not mention potential failure modes or auth requirements, but for a read-only download tool, this is sufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb 'Download' and the resource, and includes all essential information without fluff. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the action and output format, the second provides the input source and return fields.

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 simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (fileName and fileData) and the input (transaction ID). It covers the practical usage context well, though it doesn't mention error handling or size limitations, which are not critical for a basic download tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that the transaction ID comes from get_gl_transactions_detailed, going beyond the schema's generic 'Transaction ID (from the id or hID field...)'. This cross-reference helps the agent understand the correct source and usage.

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 downloads a source document (PDF) for a booked transaction and returns it as base64. It specifies the resource (transaction document) and the action (download), and distinguishes itself from generic document tools by referencing get_gl_transactions_detailed as the source of the required transaction ID.

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 clear context by instructing to use the transaction ID from get_gl_transactions_detailed, which implies this is the tool for transaction-specific documents. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the specificity of the instruction gives adequate guidance.

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