Get transaction details

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, non-destructive, openWorld — the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact: the ID must be a *current* encrypted transaction ID, hinting that stale/plain IDs will fail. It does not describe error behavior or whether enrichment adds latency.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed by the optional enrichments. No filler, though the second sentence is a noun phrase that leaves the reader guessing rather than earning its space fully.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains thin is the semantics of the two optional booleans, which the description names but does not define — the only real gap for a three-parameter read tool.

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 0%, so the schema documents only types/patterns and the description must compensate. It partially does: 'encrypted' and 'current' qualify transactionId, and 'classification and merchant enrichment' loosely map to the two booleans. But it never explains what `classified` actually returns, whether enrichment is the default, or that `classified` defaults to false.

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?

Specific verb+resource: retrieves details for a single transaction, which distinguishes it from the sb1_list_transactions and sb1_export_transactions siblings by singular vs. bulk scope. It does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, but the singular framing is clear enough to route correctly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the singular 'transaction details' framing suggests 'use when you already have one ID' versus listing. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of what to do when the ID is stale or how to obtain an ID in the first place (presumably via sb1_list_transactions).

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