get_transaction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context the annotations do not: the return content includes the objects the transaction changed, and it implicitly links to the undo workflow. It stops short of describing the full response shape, but that is a minor gap against existing annotations.

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 short, front-loaded clauses with zero filler: definition first, sibling contrast second, operational advice last. Every sentence earns its place.

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 usefully discloses that the result includes the changed objects, which is the key thing an agent needs beyond the trivial input. Coverage is strong for a read tool, though a fuller description of the payload structure would push it higher.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the transaction_id and its provenance ('Id from list_transactions'). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('read one transaction in full') and immediately scopes it ('including the objects it changed'), distinguishing it from list_transactions by contrast. An agent can tell exactly what it does and how it differs from the summarizing sibling.

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?

Names the alternative (list_transactions) and the condition that selects this tool over it ('list_transactions summarises; this shows what actually moved'), plus a concrete trigger for invocation ('read it before undoing anything'). Usage is explicit and actionable.

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