Get transaction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'every detail', signalling a full-object return, but says nothing about pending vs settled feed items, pagination, or error behavior. Some added context, but modest.

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 tight sentence with the identifying noun front-loaded. Efficient, though very short for a tool whose return shape is undocumented.

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 read-only single-record getter whose annotations cover safety and whose schema fully documents all three parameters, this is nearly sufficient. However, with no output schema, 'every detail' is the only hint about what comes back, so the agent cannot anticipate the response shape.

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%, with accountUid and categoryUid defaults fully documented and feedItemUid clearly identified. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Gets') and resource ('a single feed item (transaction)'), and clarifies the domain term 'feed item' as 'transaction'. It implicitly contrasts with the many list_* siblings by saying 'single', but never names an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. With siblings like list_transactions, list_settled_transactions, get_feed_changes_since, and get_card_transaction_details, the agent gets no help deciding which retrieval path fits a given request.

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