Get bePaid transaction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context beyond that: it surfaces test transactions that the report API omits, and it notes that a configured roster causes matched group/payer data to be shown — real output-shaping behavior an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the primary lookup modes and followed by the two edge behaviors. No filler, though the roster sentence is slightly dense and could be more clearly attached to its trigger condition.

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 two-parameter read lookup with no output schema, the description covers what can be looked up, the special test-transaction behavior, and the roster-dependent enrichment. Return shape is left unspecified, but no output schema exists to define it either, so a small gap remains.

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 description must compensate. It does clarify semantics: uid retrieves one transaction while tracking_id retrieves all transactions with that value, which is meaningful given neither parameter is required. It still omits format, expected value shape, and what happens when neither or both are supplied.

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 a specific verb (looks up) and resource (transaction), and distinguishes the two lookup modes by uid vs tracking_id. It also notes two distinctive behaviors (test transactions, roster matching). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling bepaid_list_transactions, so it stops short of a 5.

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: use it when you have a uid or a tracking_id. The remark that it finds test transactions 'which the report API does not return' hints at when this tool is preferable to a reporting path, but no explicit alternatives (e.g. bepaid_list_transactions or bepaid_export_transactions) 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.