Get transaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'with a revision hash', which hints at additional behavior (possibly returning a hash for optimistic concurrency), but it doesn't disclose what the revision hash is for, whether the transaction is returned in full, what happens if the ID is invalid, or any error behavior. For a read tool, this is thin.

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?

Single sentence, eight words, front-loaded with verb and resource. Zero waste. 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it identifies the operation and a distinctive detail (revision hash). However, it could add context on the revision hash's purpose and possibly differentiate from search_transactions. Given the tool's simplicity, a 3 is fair – it's not incomplete to a dangerous degree, but leaves some behavioral mystery.

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 has 0% description coverage, but there is only one parameter ('transaction_id') with a clear name and minLength. The description adds the concept of 'revision hash', which is relevant to the response, not the parameter. Since there's only one simple param, the description does not need to say much, but it doesn't clarify the expected format of the ID (e.g., UUID, numeric). Still, the name is self-explanatory, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Get') with a single resource ('one transaction by ID') and adds the detail 'with a revision hash'. It distinguishes from sibling 'search_transactions' (which would find multiple) and 'list_accounts' (different resource). However, it could more explicitly contrast with 'search_transactions' to fully close the gap.

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 context suggests this is for retrieving a single transaction when the ID is known, whereas 'search_transactions' is for broader queries. However, the description doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or typical scenarios. It provides minimal guidance beyond the obvious.

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