Get Transaction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the tool's safety and idempotency. The description adds no new behavioral insights beyond the fact it retrieves a single transaction. It does not contradict annotations, but also does not add value beyond them.

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 a single sentence of six words, achieving maximum conciseness. Every word is necessary and 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?

Given no output schema, the description does not specify what is returned (e.g., 'returns the full transaction object'). For a retrieval tool, describing the return value would enhance completeness. However, the tool is simple and the name implies a standard get operation, so it is minimally adequate.

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 coverage is 100% with a parameter description 'Object ID'. The tool description explicitly states 'by ID', clarifying that the 'id' parameter is the transaction ID, adding context beyond the generic schema description.

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 'Get a transaction by ID' clearly states the verb (get) and resource (transaction) with the method (by ID). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like list_transactions, create_transaction, and delete_transaction, which serve different purposes.

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 usage context: use when you have a specific transaction ID. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool (e.g., if you need multiple transactions, use list_transactions) or mention of alternatives. This is clear but not exhaustive.

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