getScheduledTransactionById

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states that it returns a scheduled transaction, implying a read-only operation without side effects. While this is sufficient for a simple getter, it does not explicitly confirm safety or disclose potential errors (e.g., missing ID).

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose. No wasted words, earning its place for a simple get-by-id tool.

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 simplicity of the tool and good schema parameter descriptions, the minimal description is adequate. The return value implication ('single scheduled transaction') is clear. However, the lack of output schema or behavioral details slightly reduces 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with well-described parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate per guidelines.

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 'Returns a single scheduled transaction' clearly states the verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like getScheduledTransactions which return multiple. However, it is essentially restating the tool name with minimal additional specificity.

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 (e.g., createScheduledTransaction, updateScheduledTransaction). No preconditions or context are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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