folio_get_transaction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response includes eventId, payment parties, and attachments, which is real context about what is returned. It does not say what happens when the id is unknown or whether the call reaches external systems (relevant given openWorldHint).

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?

One short sentence leads with the action and adds the payload contents; nothing is padded. It is arguably under-specified rather than overly long, but structurally it is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden; it partially does so by listing eventId, payment parties, and attachments. However, it omits identifier format, not-found behavior, and attachment retrieval details (there is a separate folio_read_attachment sibling), leaving gaps for an agent to discover by trial.

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 0% and the single required parameter transaction_id is undocumented in both schema and description. Worse, the description names "eventId" rather than transaction_id, which can mislead an agent about what identifier to supply. The description therefore does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

"Les én bankbevegelse" gives a specific verb (read) plus resource (single bank transaction), and "én" implicitly separates it from folio_list_transactions. The added content list (eventId, betalingsparter, vedlegg) tells the agent what the record contains. It does not name a sibling explicitly, and the Norwegian phrasing against an English tool name slightly slows matching.

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 only implied: the singular "én" suggests fetching a known transaction rather than browsing, which contrasts with folio_list_transactions. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no statement of prerequisites, and no named alternative.

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