get_transaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action of fetching a transaction, without mentioning whether it requires authentication, what it returns, error behavior, or any side effects. This is minimal and leaves the agent to infer that it is a read-only operation.

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 front-loads the function and key identifier. There is no unnecessary elaboration or repetition, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but lacks guidance on usage versus sibling tools and any details about return values or error handling. It is complete enough for a basic get-by-ID operation but leaves gaps for an agent unfamiliar with the system.

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% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (api_key and id_by_customer). The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the purpose of id_by_customer. Since the schema is self-explanatory, a baseline 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 the tool's function: fetching a single transaction by its id_by_customer. The verb 'Ruft ab' (fetches) and resource 'Transaktion' make the purpose specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like list_transactions (which lists multiple) and create_transaction (which creates).

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 implies usage when a single transaction needs to be retrieved by its id_by_customer, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_transactions. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided, leaving context implicit rather than explicit.

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