get_transaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return fields (source, destination, amount, tick, execution status) and the ID format constraint. However, it does not describe error handling (e.g., transaction not found) or any side effects, which would be expected for full transparency.

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 three short sentences, each adding value: purpose, return fields, and ID format. It is front-loaded with the primary action and has no unnecessary words.

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 single-parameter lookup tool, the description covers the return fields and the input format, which is sufficient for basic use. However, it omits behavior when the transaction is not found, and since there is no output schema, the return field types/structures are not described, leaving a minor 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%, with the parameter described as 'The 60-character lowercase transaction ID'. The description adds the same constraint ('Transaction IDs are 60 lowercase letters') but no additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('Qubic transaction') and specifies the lookup key (transaction ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_transfer_history, which lists transactions rather than retrieving a single one by ID.

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 description implies when to use the tool: when you have a transaction ID and need its details. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, such as get_transfer_history for broader transaction queries.

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