get_transaction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the response is detail-rich (shows the objects that moved) and it functions as a prerequisite check before an undo. It doesn't discuss size limits or error behavior, but for a single-record read that gap is minor.

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 sentences, none wasted: what it returns, how it differs from the sibling, and when to call it. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first line.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what the payload contains and where it fits in a workflow (before an undo). Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the single parameter is already documented as 'Id from list_transactions.' The description adds no format, range, or provenance detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 and resource ('Read one transaction in full') plus the scope of the payload ('including the objects it changed'). It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling list_transactions, so an agent can choose between them without opening either schema.

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 summarises; this shows what actually moved') and gives a concrete usage condition: 'Read it before undoing anything' – implicitly routing the agent toward undo_transaction as the follow-up. When-to-use and when-to-prefer-the-sibling are both covered.

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