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. The description discloses this is a read-only retrieval operation implicitly via 'Get details', which is helpful. However, it doesn't describe the return format/shape of the response or whether a missing GUID returns an error vs empty result. The presence of an output schema partially mitigates return-format concerns, but error behavior is undisclosed.

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 compact - one purpose sentence plus a brief Args block. The Args section repeats schema info, which is somewhat redundant, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose statement. No wasted prose.

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 single-parameter read tool with a provided output schema, the description is largely adequate. The GUID prefix-search capability is a valuable detail unique to this tool. The main gap is absence of explicit read-only disclosure given no annotations, but with the output schema covered and one simple parameter, this tool needs minimal additional context beyond what's provided.

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% - the schema fully documents the guid parameter including the format (32-char hex or 8+ char prefix). The description repeats the same information in the Args section, adding no value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting; the description's Args note about 8+ char prefix is a minor helpful addition.

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 states 'Get details for a specific transaction by GUID' - a specific verb+resource pairing that clearly distinguishes this from list_transactions and search_transactions siblings. The verb 'Get' combined with 'by GUID' establishes a clear retrieval-for-one-entity purpose distinct from bulk listing tools.

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 for retrieving a single transaction by GUID, which is reasonably clear context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this (e.g., when to prefer list_transactions or search_transactions for broad queries), though the 'by GUID' qualifier implicitly signals single-entity lookup instead of searching/filtering.

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