mhlb_get_transaction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds the context that it returns line-item detail (lunches paid for), which is useful but doesn't disclose additional behavioral aspects like error handling or authentication requirements. With annotations covering the read-only safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clear sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope. Every word adds value.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description sufficiently explains what it does and what it returns. It could mention the response structure more explicitly, but the 'line-item detail' phrasing gives adequate context. Minor gaps exist around exact response format, but they are not critical.

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 fully describes the transactionId parameter, including its source ('id' field from mhlb_list_transactions). The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema, so with 100% coverage the baseline score 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?

The description states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('transaction'), and further specifies 'line-item detail' and explains what that means ('which lunches it paid for'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mhlb_list_transactions which lists transactions, and mhlb_get_order which deals with orders.

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 implies usage: to retrieve details of a single transaction, presumably after listing transactions. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or give when-to-use vs when-not-to-use conditions, so guidance is implied rather than stated.

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