Get External Transaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the basic get operation. It does not mention whether the transaction must exist, what happens on lookup failure, whether this is read-only, or any response-shape details beyond what the output schema already covers. The word 'Get' implies a safe read, but that is not explicit.

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 a single short sentence with no filler. The key qualifier 'alternative billing' is front-loaded, which helps clarify the resource. It is efficient, though it could add a bit more context without bloating.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter getter with an output schema, so the basic call contract is covered. However, without annotations or additional behavioral context, the description leans heavily on the schema and leaves the agent without guidance on error conditions, intended use, or distinctions from related get endpoints. Complete enough for invocation, but not rich.

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%, so the input schema already documents both package_name and external_transaction_id. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, but given complete schema coverage, a baseline score of 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 identifies the action ('Get') and the resource ('external (alternative billing) transaction'), which is specific and differentiates it from general order or purchase tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling get tools like get_order or get_product_purchase, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, fallback tools, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The sibling list includes several other read operations, but the description gives no hint about how to choose among them.

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