Read a transaction

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: it explains the fee_cents vs amount_cents vs buyer_total_cents accounting, discloses that a sensitive handover_code may be present, and gives a concrete handling rule (relay to owner only, never to the seller's agent) plus the API-key requirement.

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?

Front-loads what the tool returns, then the field semantics, then the security instruction. Every sentence carries information, though the fee/buyer_total explanation could be tightened.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return contents and does so well (event history, due dates, fee fields, conditional handover_code). It stops short of noting error behavior for an unknown/invalid transaction_id.

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?

Only one parameter, already documented at 100% schema coverage with a ^txn\_ pattern. The description adds no format or sourcing guidance for transaction_id, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource ('one transaction with its full event history') and enumerates what the payload contains (escrow/dispatch/delivery/cancellation/dispute events, dispatch_due_at, release_due_at, fee fields). The singular scope implicitly contrasts it with list_transactions, though no sibling is named.

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 singular-scope framing plus the buyer-role handover_code instruction implies when this tool applies, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of list_transactions when...' routing and no stated preconditions beyond the API key.

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