get_scheduled_transaction

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the operation is a get (read-only), explains the exclude_fields mechanism and references FIELDS.md. It lacks explicit mention of error handling or idempotency, but covers the core behavior well.

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?

The description is concise, front-loaded with purpose, and structured as a clear docstring. Every sentence adds value without 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 an output schema, the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers parameters thoroughly but references an external file (FIELDS.md) for default exclude list, which could be summarized. Overall, it's nearly complete for a simple getter.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It fully explains each parameter: scheduled_transaction_id is the ID, plan_id requires list_plans, exclude_fields has detailed default and override semantics.

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 starts with 'Get a single scheduled transaction', clearly stating the action and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling list_scheduled_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?

The description explains required parameters (scheduled_transaction_id, plan_id) and how to find plan_id via list_plans. It also details exclude_fields behavior, including default and custom usage. However, it does not explicitly contrast with list_scheduled_transactions or provide when-not-to-use scenarios.

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