Transactions Get Transaction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., no side effects, no mention of required permissions). With annotations, the bar is lower, but the description contributes minimal value beyond what is already structured.

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 extremely concise ('Get transaction.'), but it is also under-specified and adds no information beyond the title. While not verbose, it sacrifices clarity and utility for brevity.

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 tool has 5 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain parameter usage, return values, or any contextual details. Annotations provide safety info, but the description does not fill remaining gaps.

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 40% (fields and output_mode have descriptions). The tool's description does not explain any parameter semantics, such as the format of transaction_id, the meaning of session_path, or the effect of redirect_posted. It adds no value beyond the schema.

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 states the verb 'Get' and resource 'transaction', clearly indicating retrieval of a single transaction. It distinguishes from sibling tools like transactions_list_transactions (list) and transactions_update_transaction (update). However, it does not specify what is returned or the scope beyond the title.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as transactions_list_transactions or transactions_get_transaction_splits. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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