kontist_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 behavior. 'Fetch' clearly indicates a read-only operation with no side effects, which is useful. However, it does not state behavior for missing/invalid IDs or describe the response structure, which would be valuable for a no-output-schema tool.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb, resource, scope, and lookup key are all immediately clear, and every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter fetch tool, the description combined with the schema is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It is missing optional details like not-found behavior or return format, but these are minor for such a straightforward 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 input schema already fully documents the sole parameter 'id' with the description 'Transaction ID' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond restating that the lookup is by ID, so it does not exceed the schema baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), a clear resource ('single Kontist transaction'), and a distinguishing scope ('by its ID'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like kontist_list_transactions, which retrieves multiple transactions.

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 the correct usage context: use this tool when you already have a transaction ID and need one specific transaction. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'single... by its ID' phrasing provides clear contextual guidance.

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