Retrieve a transfer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of not-found behavior, error semantics, or what a retrieved transfer contains. It is pure restatement.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, but the first line duplicates the title verbatim and earns nothing; only the id-format clause carries information, and even that is redundant. Brevity here comes from under-specification rather than discipline.

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 rich annotations and full schema coverage, the bar is low and the definition is barely adequate. It omits any hint about failure modes or the relationship to the reference-based sibling, which is the one genuinely useful thing it could have said.

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% and the single parameter documents the `trf_…` format itself. The description repeats that same prefix, adding no syntax, validation, or identifier-source detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve a transfer') and notes it works by id, which implicitly separates it from get_transfer_by_reference. However, the first sentence only restates the title, and no sibling is named, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 'by id (`trf_…`)' phrasing implies the condition for choosing this over get_transfer_by_reference, but the alternative is never named and no when-not guidance is given. Usage is left to inference.

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