Get Transaction Detail

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

Annotations already provide readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about the content returned (execution profile) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, size limits, or performance considerations beyond what the schema already covers. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second gives usage context. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no extraneous information.

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 an output schema, the description compensates by stating that the tool returns an execution profile with specific components (SQL, API calls, method traces). The parameters are thoroughly documented in the schema, and the annotations cover safety. It could be slightly more explicit about the response format or error cases, but it is adequate for selection and invocation.

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 each parameter (txid, date, max_steps) having a descriptive description. The tool description adds no further parameter-level meaning, 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 that the tool retrieves full details of a specific transaction, enumerating the execution profile components (SQL queries, API calls, method traces). This differentiates it from sibling tools like search_transactions and list_active_services, which are about discovery rather than detail.

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 explicitly directs the agent to use this tool after identifying a problematic transaction from search_transactions or list_active_services, naming the preceding tools. This provides clear workflow timing and implies when not to use it (i.e., not for discovery).

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