Get Instances Transfers By Id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description contributes nothing beyond that: no statement of what a transfer record contains, whether the lookup returns 404 for unknown ids, or whether the response includes nested payout/payin links.

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 single phrase is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness—there is no front-loaded statement of resource, scope, or return value. Length is only a virtue when the necessary information is still present, and here it is not.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place an agent could learn what a retrieved transfer looks like, and it provides nothing. Even with the lookup being a simple read, the definition is too thin for an agent to confidently pick this tool among dozens of sibling GET-by-id endpoints.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden of explaining the two required parameters. It says nothing about the relationship between instance_id and id, nor that id refers specifically to a transfer identifier (the `tr_` example and 15-char length constraint are buried in the schema with no prose support).

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?

"Retrieve Transfer" restates the title (Get Instances Transfers By Id) without adding scope: it never says this fetches a single transfer by its 15-character id within a given instance. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling GetV1InstancesTransfers (list) or GetV1InstancesPayoutsById, so an agent must infer the difference from the name alone.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus GetV1InstancesTransfers, which is the obvious alternative for transfer data. No prerequisites, no mention of needing both instance_id and the transfer id, and no exclusion conditions. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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