Get Transaction

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real domain context — that the read-back type is always "C" and that only a signed marker or a confirmed row's registration journal proves direction — which is a useful trap warning. The phrasing is jargon-heavy and cryptic, keeping it short of a 4.

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 core action is front-loaded in one short sentence, with the caveat second. It is compact with no filler, though the second sentence is dense and would benefit from a clearer lead-in.

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 simple read tool with no output schema, the description at least flags one return-field gotcha. It does not explain the returned transaction shape or which fields exist, leaving the return contract largely implied.

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% for the single id parameter, so the schema already documents it as an Object ID with bounds. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource (get a transaction) keyed by ID, which is enough to separate it from list_transactions. However, it never names or contrasts the sibling CRUD tools (update_transaction, confirm_transaction), so differentiation rests on the name alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus list_transactions for enumeration or how an agent should obtain the required ID. The clause about CAMT/Wise markers describes data interpretation, not when to invoke the tool.

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