get_transaction

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds the useful constraint that only transactions owned by the authenticated user are retrievable, implying out-of-scope IDs will not resolve. It says nothing about not-found behavior, error shape, or how much detail is returned, so the addition is modest.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, stating the action, the scope, and the ownership constraint at once.

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 one-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and a readOnly annotation, the description covers what an agent needs to select and call it. Only edge-case behavior for missing or unowned transaction IDs is left unstated, which is a minor gap.

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% and the single parameter is documented as a GUID transaction ID. The description mentions no parameter at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get details') and resource ('a single transaction') with an ownership scope ('owned by the authenticated user'), which cleanly separates it from the plural sibling list_transactions. It stops short of naming that sibling, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

When-to-use is implied by 'single transaction' versus the list-oriented siblings, but there is no explicit guidance, no mention of what to do when the ID is unknown or the transaction isn't owned by the caller, and no reference to an alternative tool.

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