Get ledger transaction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the response shape (all journal lines with account, debit, credit, description, sales tax), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not mention pagination or behavior when a transaction ID is absent.

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?

Two short sentences with no waste. The returned content is front-loaded and the parameter-sourcing note follows immediately, which is the right order for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential missing pieces: what a record contains and where the required ID comes from. The businessId default is already handled in the schema, so nothing critical is absent, though a note on error behavior for unknown IDs would round it out.

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 coverage is only 50%: businessId is documented in the schema, but transactionId has no description there. The description compensates by stating that IDs come from wave_list_ledger_transactions, effectively explaining the origin and format of the one undocumented required 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 names a specific resource and scope: a single transaction from the *imported ledger*, plus an enumeration of the journal-line fields returned. That distinguishes it reasonably from wave_get_transaction and wave_list_ledger_transactions, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with wave_get_transaction, which is the nearest ambiguous sibling.

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?

It gives a concrete sourcing rule — 'IDs come from wave_list_ledger_transactions' — which tells the agent how to obtain the required parameter. However, there is no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to wave_get_transaction or wave_list_ledger_transactions, so the agent must infer that this is the detail-fetch following a list call.

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