tables_db_get_transaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the transaction ID doesn't exist (e.g., error handling), or the format/scope of returned data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of database operations and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'transaction' entails in this context, what data is returned, or any behavioral aspects like error conditions. For a tool in a rich sibling environment with no structured support, more context is needed to be complete.

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%, with the single parameter 'transaction_id' documented in the schema as 'Transaction ID.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it only restates that the tool gets a transaction 'by its unique ID.' With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides adequate parameter documentation.

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 states the action ('Get') and resource ('a transaction by its unique ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other 'get' operations in the sibling list like 'tables_db_get', 'tables_db_get_row', or 'tables_db_get_table', which all follow similar patterns but target different resources.

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. Given the many sibling tools (including 'tables_db_list_transactions' for listing transactions and other 'get' tools for different resources), there's no indication of prerequisites, when this is appropriate, or what distinguishes it from related operations.

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