get_transfer

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a safe read. But the description does not describe return format, error handling, or any additional operational traits, making it minimal.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states exactly what the tool does without wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter and earns its place.

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 read-only getter with one parameter and good annotations, the description is nearly complete. It doesn't explain return values, but for a get operation the response is reasonably inferred. The lack of an output schema and any mention of errors or edge cases prevents a perfect score.

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 covers the transferId parameter with a description 'Transfer ID', achieving 100% schema_description_coverage. The description's 'by ID' adds no new meaning beyond the parameter itself. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (get), resource (specific transfer), and scope (by ID), distinguishing it from list_transfers and create_transfer. It is a specific verb+resource phrasing that leaves no ambiguity.

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 usage is implied: one needs a transferId to use this tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_transfers or other getters, nor any mention of alternatives. The context is clear but lacks direct exclusions or alternatives.

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