get_transaction

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

With no annotations, the description provides a basic read-only implication but fails to disclose any behavioral details such as return format, error handling (e.g., 404 if not found), or authentication requirements. For a simple getter, minimal disclosure is expected, but some context is still missing.

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, clear sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 get-by-ID tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the core purpose and usage context, though it could mention what happens on failure or the return type, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema has one parameter 'id' with 100% description coverage. The tool description reinforces the ID concept but adds no additional semantic details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a single PocketSmith transaction') with a scope constraint ('by ID'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_transactions and create_transaction by emphasizing the singular retrieval nature.

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 phrase 'by ID' implies the tool is used when a specific transaction ID is known, clearly differentiating it from listing tools. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or mention alternative sibling tools.

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