Get transaction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it discloses that a receipt, if present, exposes its name and a temporary download link, which is useful for the agent to anticipate.

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?

Two tight sentences with no waste; the core purpose is front-loaded and the receipt detail follows as a secondary note.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden. It notes the transaction comes with 'all its fields' and describes the receipt sub-field, which is reasonably complete, though 'all its fields' is vague and leaves the exact return shape undefined.

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 coverage is 100% and there is a single required transactionId already documented in the schema. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 it returns a single bank/manual transaction with all its fields, and the receipt handling is specific. The implicit verb (get) and the singular 'One ... transaction' distinguish it from list_transactions, though it does not explicitly name siblings like update_transaction or attach_transaction_receipt.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The schema hints that the id comes 'from list_transactions,' but the description itself offers nothing about when to reach for this tool versus list_transactions or the update/receipt siblings.

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