get_transaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' details, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words, front-loading the core action and key input. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'transaction details' include (e.g., status, amount, timestamp), potential error cases, or integration context with sibling tools. For a tool in a blockchain environment with many related operations, more contextual guidance is needed.

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 description mentions the parameter ('by signature'), but the input schema already has 100% coverage with a clear description for 'signature'. No additional semantic context is provided, such as signature format examples or validation rules, so it adds minimal value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema 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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('transaction details') with a specific mechanism ('by signature'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_account_info' or 'get_token_accounts' that also retrieve information, which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_account_info' for account-level details or 'get_recent_blockhash' for blockchain context. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving usage context ambiguous.

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