get_transaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses 'Read-only' which is a useful safety trait, but does not mention error behavior, return format, or rate limits. This is acceptable for a simple read operation but lacks depth.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no redundant words. Every clause contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and safety, making it highly efficient.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and the presence of siblings, the description covers intent and read-only nature sufficiently. Some details like return value or error cases are omitted, but they are not critical for a basic fetch operation.

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 covers 100% of the parameter, already indicating it is the gateway transaction ID. The description adds no new semantics beyond what the schema provides, thus baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Fetch' with a specific resource ('a single transaction') and the required identifier ('by its gateway transaction ID'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_transactions and list_* tools by emphasizing 'single' and the gateway ID lookup.

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 implies usage when you have a gateway transaction ID and need one specific transaction. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough to infer appropriate use.

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