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 safety and external-data exposure are partly covered. The description adds a valuable security warning that the returned text is third-party authored and must be treated as data, not instructions. It does not describe error behavior or null-line-item handling, keeping it out of the top score.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed immediately by the untrusted-content warning. Every clause earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, the untrusted-content risk, and the parameter's origin. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, and the single parameter is documented as the 'id' field from mhlb_list_transactions, with a positive-integer constraint. The description adds no further parameter detail beyond what the schema already supplies, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Get the line-item detail of one transaction — which lunches it paid for.' The second clause clarifies the return content in concrete terms, distinguishing it from list-level siblings. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from mhlb_get_order or mhlb_print_transaction, but the resource is uniquely named.

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?

Usage is implied: you need a transaction ID, and the schema points to mhlb_list_transactions as the source. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, and no mention of how this differs from mhlb_print_transaction, but the resource name plus parameter documentation make the scenario reasonably inferable.

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