Get Transaction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the endpoint path but no extra behavioral context like error handling, return format, or pagination. This matches the baseline for a simple read operation with good 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately states the operation and the endpoint. There is zero wasted verbiage, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 simple get-by-ID operation with a single parameter and good annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It includes the endpoint and the parameter. The lack of an output schema means return values are not explicitly described, but for a retrieval tool this is implied. Slight gap: it doesn't mention that the transaction must exist or that a 404 may occur, but this is minor given the simplicity.

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 one parameter, transactionId, with type string, format uuid, and a pattern. Schema description coverage is 0%, but the parameter name is self-explanatory, and the description's 'por ID' reinforces its meaning. The endpoint path also clarifies it is the path parameter. This is adequate compensation for the lack of schema descriptions on a single, obvious 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves a transaction by ID, using a specific verb ('Obtém' = Gets) and resource ('transação'). It also includes the endpoint path, and the name itself distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_transactions and create_transaction.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you have a transaction ID and need to retrieve that specific transaction. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the 'por ID' and the contrast with list_transactions make the usage context clear.

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