ynab_get_transaction

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

The description adds value beyond annotations: it discloses caching behavior (returns cached, cache_info), details the response structure, and explains error conditions. Annotations provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, which are consistent. No contradictions.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose, then Args list, Returns, and Errors sections. Each sentence is necessary and informative. No extraneous text.

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 and output schema (implied), the description lists all return fields, including subtransactions and caching info, which is comprehensive. It also covers error handling and optional parameter behavior, making it fully adequate for an agent to use without ambiguity.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description fully explains each parameter: budget_id can be omitted for default budget, transaction_id is required, response_format has enum options with default 'markdown'. It adds meaning beyond the schema by defining default behavior and error messages.

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 'Get full details for a single transaction by ID' immediately. The verb 'get' and resource 'single transaction' specify the action and scope, distinguishing it from siblings like ynab_list_transactions (list multiple) or ynab_update_transaction (modify). It is specific and unambiguous.

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 usage context by listing the required and optional parameters with explanations, and includes error conditions with corrective actions (e.g., run ynab_set_default_budget if no default budget). Although it does not explicitly say when not to use it, the purpose and sibling names imply that for listing multiple transactions or for other operations, other tools are appropriate.

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