external_transactions_get

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

With no annotations present, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but does not mention any side effects, permissions, rate limiting, or error cases. This is insufficient for safe agent invocation.

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 brief and to the point, using a single sentence. However, it could benefit from structured elements like bullet points or examples to improve readability while maintaining 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 the lack of output schema and the presence of two required parameters with incomplete schema descriptions, the tool definition is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to interpret the response, or any additional context for using the parameters effectively.

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 description adds no meaning beyond the input schema. The schema itself only describes the 'parent' parameter's format; the 'externalTransactionId' has no description. At 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 clearly states the action (Get) and the resource (external transaction). It distinguishes from sibling tools like external_transactions_create and external_transactions_refund, but the 'Alternative Billing' parenthetical is somewhat ambiguous and could be expanded.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like external_transactions_create or external_transactions_refund. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or complementary tools.

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