mhlb_get_transaction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true and openWorldHint: true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds context about what kind of detail is returned ('line-item detail' and 'which lunches it paid for'), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich – a score of 3 reflects that the description adds some value beyond annotations but not extensive behavioral context.

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 with a dash for clarification. It front-loads the core action and adds a concise qualifier. There is zero redundancy, and every word adds meaning. This is an excellent example of concise and well-structured text.

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?

For a simple one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description gives sufficient context: it tells what the tool retrieves and even hints at the content ('line-item detail' and 'which lunches it paid for'). It does not describe pagination, return format, or error handling, but these are likely not critical for a get-by-id operation. The description is complete enough for an agent to know when to call it and what to expect, though more detail on the response structure could push it to a 5.

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 coverage for the single parameter transactionId is 100%, and the schema description already explains it as the id field from mhlb_list_transactions. The tool description does not add any further meaning about the parameter. Since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline of 3 is appropriate – the description doesn't need to compensate for parameter explanation.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('transaction'), and adds specificity with 'line-item detail' and 'which lunches it paid for.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mhlb_list_transactions (which lists transactions) and mhlb_get_order (which handles orders). The purpose is immediately understandable and 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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies that you'd use it to retrieve details for a single transaction, but it doesn't mention mhlb_list_transactions or any exclusion criteria. The schema's parameter description hints at a workflow (get the id from list), but the tool description itself lacks usage direction. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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