get_transaction_property

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only that it 'gets' a property value, without mentioning whether it is read-only, how it behaves for nonexistent properties, or any error handling. This leaves the agent with incomplete information about expected outcomes.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant or extraneous words. It clearly states the action and the target resource, making it an exemplar of conciseness.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values and edge cases. It does not specify the shape or type of the returned property value, nor what happens if the property is missing. This is a significant gap for a tool that is otherwise very simple.

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 already provides 100% coverage for both parameters, including examples for 'propertyName'. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema—it merely echoes the resource being accessed. According to the baseline, a score of 3 is appropriate when schema describes parameters fully.

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' and identifies the resource 'transaction property', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like 'get_transaction' (which retrieves the whole transaction) and 'list_transactions'. It precisely indicates the tool's scope: retrieving one property value from a transaction.

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 when to use the tool—when you need a specific property from a transaction—but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'get_transaction'. There is no clear exclusion or guidance, so the usage context is merely implied rather than articulated.

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