api_indexer_lookup_transaction_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get transaction information' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results (despite the itemsPerPage parameter), or what format the information comes in. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately.

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 transaction lookup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'transaction information' includes (fields, format), whether it's historical or pending data, or how pagination works despite the itemsPerPage parameter. The context signals show this is a non-trivial tool (3 parameters, no output schema), requiring more descriptive completeness.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all three parameters well. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation through the schema alone.

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 transaction information by ID' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('transaction information'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'transaction information' includes and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'api_algod_get_pending_transaction' or 'api_indexer_search_for_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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to transactions (e.g., api_algod_get_pending_transaction, api_indexer_search_for_transactions), there's no indication whether this tool is for historical vs pending transactions, indexer vs algod API, or other contextual distinctions.

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