get_transaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states 'Get', implying a read operation, but omits details like idempotency, error cases, data freshness, or what the response contains. The existence of an output schema partially compensates, but the description itself adds minimal behavioral context.

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, short sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately front-loaded but could be slightly expanded to include more helpful information without becoming overly verbose.

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 tool with simple parameters and an output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not mention what the return value is (transaction details), handling of invalid IDs, or any prerequisites. The sibling context includes many related tools, but this description offers no integration or completion guidance.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the two parameters ('account_id' and 'transaction_id'). The description does not explain their meaning, format, or how to obtain them. It adds no value beyond the schema, which is critical given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves a specific transaction from a bank account. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('transaction from a bank account'). The purpose is easily distinguishable from siblings like 'list_transactions' or 'create_transaction', though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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., 'list_transactions'), no prerequisites, and no context about when it is appropriate. Users are left 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.