getTransactionById

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool returns a transaction, with no mention of error handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the transaction does not exist. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the action itself, which is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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, which is appropriately concise and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified: it lacks any contextual details that would help an agent decide when to use it. The brevity is fine, but the content is minimal, so it earns an average score rather than higher for clarity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity is low (a simple get-by-ID operation) and an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. However, the presence of many sibling tools and the lack of annotations mean the description should provide more context on how this tool differs from others and any relevant behavioral caveats. The current description is too sparse to be complete in this context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (plan_id and transaction_id), so the schema already documents them well. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, but since the schema is complete, the baseline score of 3 applies. The description does not compensate with any extra usage nuance, so it stays at baseline.

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 'Returns a single transaction' clearly states the verb (returns) and the resource (single transaction). It is unambiguous about the operation, though it does not explicitly mention 'by ID' beyond the tool name, nor does it differentiate from the many other transaction-related siblings such as getTransactions or getTransactionsByAccount. The purpose is clear enough for an agent to understand the basic function.

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. There is no mention of scenarios where fetching a single transaction by ID is appropriate, nor any exclusion criteria. Given the large set of sibling tools (e.g., getTransactions, getTransactionsByAccount), this lack of routing guidance leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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