get_transaction

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

No annotations are present, so the description must provide transparency. It only says 'Get detailed information' without disclosing the return format, possible errors, authentication requirements, or any side effects. For a read operation this is minimal but still insufficient for full transparency.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It communicates the essential purpose immediately and is appropriately compact for a simple get-by-ID tool.

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?

The tool is low in complexity (one parameter, no nested objects) and no output schema, so the description needs to explain what 'detailed information' entails. It does not, leaving the return value undefined. This is adequate for a basic lookup but lacks completeness.

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 schema covers 100% of the single parameter (transactionId) with a clear description. The tool description adds little beyond 'specific,' so baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') plus a well-defined resource ('detailed information about a specific Arc transaction'), clearly indicating this is a single-transaction lookup. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_transactions (multiple) and get_transaction_property (single property), though 'detailed information' remains somewhat vague.

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: use this when you have a transactionId and want full transaction details. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_transaction_property or get_transaction_logs, nor any mention of alternatives.

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