get_external_transaction

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

The description provides minimal behavioral information. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what data it returns, potential errors, or any side effects. Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden of transparency but falls short.

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, concise sentence that effectively communicates the core functionality. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action and resource, with no unnecessary detail.

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 simplicity of the operation and lack of output schema, the description is moderately complete. It lacks information about return format, possible errors, or required permissions, but for a basic 'get' operation, it may suffice for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 tool description does not add any meaning to the parameters beyond the schema's brief descriptions. The parameter names ('package_name', 'external_transaction_id') are self-explanatory, but the description offers no additional context or constraints.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('external (alternative billing) transaction'), which distinguishes it from other transaction-related tools like create or refund. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it is implied by the verb 'Get' and the resource name, there is no explicit guidance on conditions, preconditions, or comparison with similar get operations (e.g., get_order, get_subscription).

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