get_transaction

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the exclude_fields parameter behavior but omits mutation effects, permissions, error handling (e.g., missing transaction), and return format insights beyond the implied read-only nature of 'get'.

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 well-structured with a clear lead sentence and parameter breakdown. The exclude_fields explanation is slightly verbose but informative, and the reference to FIELDS.md adds external context. It is concise enough with no wasted sentences.

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?

While parameter semantics are well-covered, the description lacks context on when to choose this tool over siblings and does not disclose error behavior or read-only nature. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but behavioral gaps remain.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully explains all three parameters. It clarifies plan_id usage (reference to list_plans) and provides three distinct behaviors for exclude_fields, adding substantial meaning beyond the schema titles.

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 states 'Get a specific transaction by ID' which is a clear verb+resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_transactions or get_transactions_by_account, lacking differentiation.

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 provides detailed guidance on using parameters (e.g., plan_id from list_plans, exclude_fields options) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over other transaction retrieval siblings, leaving tool selection ambiguous.

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