transaction_inspect

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral nuance beyond that: the caveat that a game record does not prove processing of every operation in a multi-operation transaction, the 'where provable' qualifier, and the 'at most two logical reads' performance note. 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core action and output. The caveat about multi-operation transactions and the 'at most two logical reads' note earn their place, but some phrasing is dense and jargony ('gift-card agreement', 'logical reads'), which slightly reduces accessibility.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool, the description covers what is returned, the main limitation, and the read cost. There is no output schema, so the description appropriately summarizes return categories. It does not discuss error cases or auth requirements, but these are less critical given the read-only, idempotent annotations.

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?

There is only one required parameter, trx_id, and the schema's name plus regex already define it well. The description's 'one transaction' indirectly refers to this parameter but adds no new detail about format, interpretation, or edge cases. With 0% schema-description coverage, the description does not carry much of the parameter-documentation burden.

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 action ('Inspect one transaction') and the resource, and goes on to describe the outputs ('independent chain/game outcomes, decoded game JSON, and gift-card agreement where provable'). It does not explicitly contrast with the related sibling transaction_lookup, so it loses the top point for sibling differentiation.

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 gives useful context about what the tool does and its read behavior ('At most two logical reads'), which implies when it is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over siblings like transaction_lookup or cards_trx_lookup, nor does it give any exclusions or alternatives.

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