get_transaction

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=true annotation, the description discloses the exact response structure, field types, type-dependent variation, decimal-string representation, signed units semantics, and dropped internal fields. This is substantial behavioral context that goes well beyond the annotation.

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?

Three sentences: one summarizing purpose, one detailing response structure, one noting field conventions. Every sentence adds value and the main action is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter read tool, the description fully explains the response format, field behavior, and exclusions. The output schema exists, but the description goes beyond it with type semantics and dropped-field details.

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?

The schema already documents transaction_id with a description and 100% coverage. The description doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, but the schema fully covers it, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Get the details of a single transaction', which is a specific verb+resource+scope statement. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_transactions and get_transactions_range by emphasizing 'single transaction'.

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 phrase 'single transaction' clearly implies this tool is for retrieving one transaction by ID, in contrast to list_transactions or get_transactions_range. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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