transaction_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation through 'Check,' and gives a safety-related use case, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating or idempotent. This is adequate but leaves room for more explicit assurance.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes actionable usage guidance. No filler or repetition of schema details. Every word contributes value.

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?

The tool has five parameters, three of which are not explained, and there is no output schema. The description does not explain what the status response contains or how to interpret it, which is crucial for an agent to act on the result. Missing return-value semantics is a significant gap for a status-checking tool.

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 description explains the two primary identifier parameters (transactionId and originalConversationId) and adds context about the timeout scenario, but it leaves three other parameters (remarks, resultUrl, shortCode) completely unexplained. With schema coverage at 40% and no descriptions for these fields in the schema, the description fails to compensate for the gap.

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: 'Check the status of any past transaction by receipt number, or by conversation id when the original request timed out.' It uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('status of any past transaction'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by covering any past transaction, not just specific payment types.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use this before retrying a payment you are unsure about.' It also specifies a particular scenario (timeout) when to use conversation id instead of receipt number, helping the agent decide when to call this tool versus alternatives like stk_query or reversal.

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