get_transaction

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

Annotations already cover key behavioral traits (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds minimal context by implying it retrieves 'detailed information,' but doesn't elaborate on what details are included, error handling, or rate limits.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of it contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 annotations provide safety and behavioral hints, and an output schema exists (so return values don't need explanation), the description is reasonably complete for a simple read operation. However, it lacks context on parameter meanings and usage scenarios, which holds it back from a 5.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only vaguely references 'a specific transaction' without explaining what budget_id or transaction_id represent. This leaves parameters largely undocumented, though the 0-param baseline doesn't apply here since there are 2 parameters.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information for a specific transaction'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'list_transactions' or 'compare_transactions', which would require a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like needing a budget_id, contrast with 'list_transactions' for multiple transactions, or specify use cases for detailed versus summary views.

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