get_order_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It details the API endpoint and response structure, including transaction types (sale, refund, void) and fields. This helps the agent understand the tool's behavior as a read operation. However, it does not discuss authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential failure modes (e.g., invalid order_id). Given the lack of annotations, the description is fairly transparent.

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 well-structured with clear sections (用途, API, 回傳結構) and is concise. It front-loads the purpose, provides the endpoint, and gives a detailed response example. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant information. It is efficiently organized for quick comprehension.

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?

Without an output schema, the description compensates by providing a detailed response structure with key fields (id, kind, status, amount, gateway, created_at). It also mentions the API endpoint. However, it omits error handling, validation prerequisites (e.g., order must exist), and pagination details (if any). For a read operation with a single parameter, this is mostly complete but has minor gaps.

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 the single parameter order_id, which already clarifies that it is the internal ID (not order number). The description text does not add additional parameter semantics beyond this. Therefore, the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: '取得指定訂單的所有付款交易紀錄' (retrieve all payment transactions for a specified order). It also mentions use cases ('對帳與財務核查' for reconciliation and financial audit). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_order_detail (order details) or get_order_delivery (delivery info), making the purpose highly specific and clear.

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 a clear use case (reconciliation, financial audit) and lists the API endpoint, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. There is no comparison with other order-related tools or guidance on prerequisites (e.g., ensuring the order exists). This is adequate but lacks proactive usage direction.

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