Get Scheduled Transaction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it confirms read-only operation ('Read-only') and clarifies the ID format restriction. 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?

Two sentences, concisely structured. First sentence defines purpose and returned fields. Second sentence provides critical usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 presence of output schema, the description does not need to explain return values in detail. It fully covers the essential behavioral nuance (ID format restriction) and is complete for this tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by listing the returned data (next date, frequency, amount, payee, category) and highlighting the invalid composite ID pattern. This provides context not in the schema.

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 'Get one scheduled (recurring) transaction by ID' and lists specific fields returned (next date, frequency, amount, payee, category). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_transaction' by noting that composite realized-transaction IDs are not valid here.

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?

Explicitly states when not to use the tool (composite IDs with date suffix) and directs users to use 'get_transaction' instead for those cases. Provides clear context for correct invocation.

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