get_transaction

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly signals a read-only retrieval and indicates the result is a single transaction, but it does not mention response shape, error behavior, or not-found handling. For a simple getter this is a baseline acceptable level.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, making it optimally sized for a trivial getter.

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?

The tool is low complexity with one required parameter and no output schema. The description covers the key input semantic but omits return and error behavior; while it works for a simple get-by-ID, it could have added a sentence about what is returned to be more complete.

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. It clarifies that the `id` parameter is the transaction identifier, which directly maps to the required schema property. However, it adds no detail on ID format or constraints beyond the schema's `string` type, leaving it at a passable level.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the resource ('transaction'), and scopes the operation to a single item 'by ID'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling collection tools like list_transactions and search_transactions.

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 'by ID' qualifier gives clear context: use this tool when you have a specific transaction ID. It does not explicitly contrast with list_transactions or search_transactions, nor state exclusions, but the conditional is strong and easy to infer.

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