get_transaction

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

readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read, and the description's 'Get details' aligns with it, so no contradiction. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the parameter format (e.g., no mention of returned transaction shape, prefix-match behavior, or error conditions), but annotations cover the main safety profile.

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?

Two short lines front-load the purpose and then list the argument. The Args block is somewhat redundant with the schema, but the description is compact and easy to scan.

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-only get-by-GUID with an output schema and readOnlyHint annotation, this is nearly complete. It could be more helpful by noting what happens when the GUID prefix is ambiguous or not found, but nothing essential to invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 single guid parameter is 100% described in the input schema, so the description doesn't need to compensate. The 'Args' line merely repeats the schema description ('Transaction GUID (32-char hex or 8+ char prefix)') and adds no new semantic information.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get details for a specific transaction by GUID.' This makes the read/retrieval intent clear and distinguishes it from list/search by emphasizing a GUID lookup, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like search_transactions or list_transactions.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus list_transactions, search_transactions, or other siblings. The only implied context is that a GUID is required, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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