storekit__get_transaction_info

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the ASC_APPLE_ROOT_CERTS environment dependency determines whether the payload comes back decoded or as a signed JWS string, and it names the App Store Server Library as the verification path. It does not cover permissions or error conditions, but the auth/output-mode disclosure is substantive.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose before the conditional signing behavior, and ending with the API source tag. No filler or redundancy.

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 burden of describing returns; it does so by naming the decoded fields and the JWS-string alternative. Combined with the environment and certs behavior, an agent has enough to call and interpret the result correctly.

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%, so the schema already fully documents app, raw, environment, and transaction_id, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the raw/ASC_APPLE_ROOT_CERTS interaction but adds little meaning the schema does not already carry.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a single transaction') and enumerates the returned fields (product, price, dates, ownership type, revocation state). The word 'single' distinguishes it from the sibling get_transaction_history without opening either schema.

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 implied by 'Get a single transaction' and the mention of transaction_id semantics in the schema, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion versus alternatives like get_transaction_history, lookup_order, or get_refund_history. An agent must infer the selection condition.

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