isw_get_transaction_by_reference

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors. It only says 'Get ... by transactionRef query' with no mention of data retrieval scope, idempotency, error handling, or permissions. This is insufficient for understanding the tool's behavioral traits.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it is too brief to convey necessary information. Every word is present but not sufficient for a well-rounded description.

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 absence of output schema and annotations, and the presence of many sibling tools, the description leaves out essential context such as what the transaction result contains, typical use cases, and error conditions. It is incomplete for effective agent selection and invocation.

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 for parameters is 0%. The description only hints that transactionRef is used as a query identifier but provides no format, length, example, or constraints. The added value over the schema is minimal.

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 states 'Get Quickteller transaction by transactionRef query' which clearly identifies the action (get), resource (Quickteller transaction), and parameter (transactionRef). It is specific but does not differentiate from siblings like isw_get_transaction_details or isw_transaction_search_reference_search.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as isw_get_transaction_status or isw_get_transaction_details. The context of many similar transaction tools makes this omission significant.

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