Get transaction

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: the unofficial web-app API dependency and the exact remediation if the session is missing or expired, plus the editable-field and review-status return content. It does not cover error handling beyond authentication.

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 sentences, purpose first and auth remediation second. The long enumeration in the first sentence is dense but necessary because there is no output schema; no filler.

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 get-by-id tool with no output schema, the description covers the returned transaction structure and the session prerequisite. The schema handles parameter details, so no material context is missing.

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 100%, with descriptions for id and businessId; the description adds no additional parameter meaning such as format, defaults, or lookup behavior. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries parameter semantics.

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 states this returns a single transaction with its full set of lines and metadata, which is a specific resource and scope. It implicitly contrasts with wave_list_transactions by saying 'One transaction,' but it does not explicitly name that sibling or clarify its distinction from ledger transaction retrieval.

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 provides an authentication prerequisite (web session, login command) but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus wave_list_transactions or wave_get_ledger_transaction. Retrieval of one transaction by ID is implied by the description and schema.

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