get_transaction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the nuance that it returns 'full detail', which distinguishes from a list/summary variant, but doesn't elaborate on output format, pagination, errors, or any other behavioral traits. This is a small value-add beyond the 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that clearly conveys the action and target. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy. This is a model of concise tool documentation.

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-argument, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It identifies the required parameter and broadly describes the result, but 'full detail' is vague and not accompanied by any statement about what fields are included or any error semantics. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is acceptable but not complete.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is the only potential source of parameter meaning. It only restates that the parameter is an ID ('by its id'), which is already obvious from the parameter name. It doesn't provide examples, data type hints, or instructions on where the ID comes from (e.g., list_transactions), leaving the agent with minimal added guidance.

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?

States the action clearly ('Get') and identifies the resource as a single transaction and its full detail. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_transactions, although the distinction is implicit rather than explicit (e.g., it does not name the sibling). The phrase 'by its id' is a specific constraint that leaves little ambiguity.

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?

Gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of list_transactions, no prerequisites (e.g., obtaining the transaction ID), and no exclusions. The agent is left to infer from the name that this is the single-record counterpart to list_transactions.

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