transaction_lookup

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does so exceptionally: it states no submission/retry, one logical GET request, no auto-fetch pagination, local array limits, truncation reporting, and refusal of oversized records. This is far more transparent than typical tool descriptions.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, and nearly every sentence adds behavioral value. The statement about 'Required inputs reflect tool policy' is somewhat vague and adds little actionable information, preventing a perfect score.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the most important operational context: side effects, errors, pagination behavior, size limits, truncation, and oversized-record handling. It does not detail the success response shape beyond wire-type retention, but the essential lookup context is well covered.

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 clearly identifies trx_id as the required explicit ID, but username and card_detail_id are only vaguely described as 'other declared filters' with no explanation of their meaning or effect. The warning about forwarded filters is useful but does not replace parameter-level semantics.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb ('Read'), a singular resource ('one game transaction'), and the exact selector ('explicit trx_id'), making the tool's scope immediately clear. It also distinguishes this lookup from list/history tools by emphasizing the single-ID requirement.

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 makes it clear that the tool is appropriate when an explicit transaction ID is known and that it never submits or retries a transaction. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like transaction_inspect, but the singular-ID constraint gives adequate usage context.

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