get_transaction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds little beyond 'Get details', but given the low bar set by strong annotations, this is acceptable. No extra behavioral context (e.g., error cases, response format) is provided, but none is contradicted.

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 uses the active verb 'Get' and specifies the resource and lookup key. Zero wasted words, perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is simple (1 parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), and the description clarifies its purpose completely. It doesn't mention the return format, but for a 'get details' operation this is generally self-evident. Given the low complexity, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 100%: tx_hash is described as 'Transaction hash'. The description's phrase 'by its hash' adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema already fully documents the 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 verb 'Get', the resource 'details of a specific Counterparty transaction', and the scope 'by its hash'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_address_transactions or get_sends, which cover different scopes or transaction types.

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 implies the use case: when you have a transaction hash and need details for a single transaction. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name when-not-to-use, but the specificity ('specific transaction by its hash') provides clear context without being ambiguous.

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