Transactions Get

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so safety needs no repetition. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavioral context: the required OAuth scope (read_payments) and the pinned API version 2025-03, both of which affect whether the call will succeed. It stops short of describing the response or error behavior.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the operation and then the endpoint, scope, and version. Nothing is padded, though the raw HTTP line is partly redundant with the tool name for an agent that already understands the mapping.

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?

For a simple four-parameter read-by-id with full schema coverage and complete safety annotations, the description covers the operation, its addressing scheme, and the auth prerequisite. With no output schema, a hint about the returned transaction shape would have closed the last gap.

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 100%, so id, order_id, fields, and response_format are all self-documenting and the baseline of 3 applies. The endpoint template does clarify that order_id and id are path parameters, but the description adds no semantics for 'fields' or 'response_format' 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one transaction') and pins it to the exact endpoint GET /orders/{order_id}/transactions/{id}, so it is clearly the single-record reader as opposed to the list/create siblings. It does not name those siblings, but the singular scope makes the distinction obvious.

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 only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it has both an order_id and a transaction id and needs one record. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over tiendanube_transactions_list or what happens if the id is unknown.

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