get_transaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'get details', which implies a read operation but does not mention whether it is read-only, error behavior on missing IDs, rate limits, or what the returned details include. The lack of behavioral context leaves the agent with minimal information beyond the tool's name.

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 conveys the core purpose without any filler or redundancy. It is immediately readable and front-loads the key action and resource, earning a perfect conciseness score.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), so the description is minimally adequate for an agent to understand its basic purpose. However, it omits any information about the expected return format, whether the operation is read-only, or how errors are handled. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide a bit more context to be fully complete, earning a score of 3.

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 100%: the single parameter 'id' is adequately described as 'Transaction ID' in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter's format, provenance, or usage, but the schema already provides the necessary meaning, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 details of a specific transaction' clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (specific transaction), which distinguishes it from sibling tool 'list_transactions' that retrieves multiple transactions. The scope is explicitly 'specific', so an agent can reliably select this tool for single-transaction lookups.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_transactions' or other get-* tools. It does not state any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The implied usage is evident from the name and schema, but no explicit advice is given.

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