vtex_get_transaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get transaction details' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or the format of returned data. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it's overly terse and could benefit from slightly more detail to improve clarity without sacrificing brevity.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'transaction details' include, potential errors, or behavioral traits like idempotency. For a tool in a complex e-commerce context with many siblings, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'transactionId' documented as 'Transaction ID'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or sourcing instructions. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 transaction details' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('transaction details'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't specify what constitutes 'transaction details' (e.g., payment status, amount, date) or differentiate it from sibling tools like 'vtex_get_order' or 'vtex_get_gift_card_transaction', leaving room for ambiguity about the specific scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a transaction ID), exclusions, or comparisons to related tools like 'vtex_get_order' or 'vtex_get_gift_card_transaction', leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on the name and context.

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