get_transfer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it is safe and idempotent. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it returns details. It does not disclose the output format, but an output schema exists, reducing the burden.

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 concise (one short phrase) but lacks structure. It does not follow a pattern like action+resource+scope. While there's no wasted text, it could be more informative without becoming verbose.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, for a tool with one required parameter, the description is very minimal and does not address potential edge cases or prerequisites. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 sole parameter 'transfer_id' is self-explanatory and the description implies it identifies the transfer. However, schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no additional meaning or constraints beyond the parameter name and type.

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 'Detalle de un traspaso' clearly indicates it retrieves details of a single transfer. It distinguishes from the sibling list_transfers by implying a single item retrieval. However, it lacks an explicit verb in English and does not differentiate from other 'get_*' tools like get_customer.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It is implicitly used for obtaining full details of a specific transfer, with list_transfers as an alternative for an overview. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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