getScheduledTransactionById

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core read behavior ('Returns a single scheduled transaction') but doesn't disclose error handling, not-found behavior, or any operational constraints beyond the schema. This is minimal yet not misleading.

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, front-loaded sentence with the verb and object stated directly and no filler. Every word earns its place for this simple operation.

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?

With an output schema defining return values and a fully documented parameter schema, the description only needs to identify the operation, which it does effectively. It lacks usage context, but the simplicity of the tool and the structured data make the definition adequate for invocation.

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 both plan_id and scheduled_transaction_id are already fully described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, leaving the baseline of 3 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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and a resource ('a single scheduled transaction'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like getScheduledTransactions (plural) and create/update/delete variants. Although it doesn't explicitly name an alternative, the singular wording and focus on a single by-ID lookup make the operation unambiguous.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getScheduledTransactions, and it doesn't state prerequisites or scenarios. The only clues come from the tool name and parameter names, which is not explicit usage guidance.

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