Get Transaction Splits

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: it returns the current split legs, and for un-split transactions, 'splits' is empty. This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying the return shape in edge cases.

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 well-structured with a clear statement of purpose, an example, and separate Args/Returns sections. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. Could be trimmed slightly, but overall effective.

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 the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, read-only, output schema exists), the description is complete. It explains the concept, the single parameter, and the return structure including the empty case. No gaps remain.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for the parameter, but the description explicitly documents 'transaction_id: ID of the transaction to inspect'. This compensates for the schema gap by adding meaning to the single required parameter.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the split legs of a transaction.' It explains what splitting is with a concrete example ('Target run that is part groceries, part household'), making the intent unmistakable. It also contrasts with sibling tools like 'update_transaction_splits' by focusing on retrieval.

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It implies usage when you need to inspect existing splits, but there is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tools (e.g., update_transaction_splits) are appropriate for modifications.

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