Get financial mutation

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the nuance that linked payments and ledger bookings are 'currently' linked, implying they may change over time, but it does not cover error behavior, authorization, or data freshness. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

One tight sentence that front-loads the core action and immediately specifies the return scope. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 read-only get-by-id tool, the description tells the agent what it will receive and annotations cover safety. It does not describe not-found behavior or the output structure, but no output schema is declared and this is a minor gap for a simple fetch.

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 50%; financial_mutation_id has no schema description and the description only restates 'by id' without format or semantics. administration_id is documented in the schema but not reinforced in the description. The description fails to compensate for the undocumented id parameter.

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?

States it retrieves one bank transaction by id, a specific verb and object, and specifies that linked payments and ledger bookings are included. This clearly distinguishes it from list_financial_mutations and from get_payment.

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 use when you have a financial_mutation_id and need a single transaction with its current links, but it does not explicitly contrast this with list_financial_mutations or get_payment. No alternatives or exclusion conditions are named.

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