get_transaction

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It communicates a read-style operation via 'Get' and states the return shape, but it does not mention error behavior, permissions, or what 'full details' includes. This is adequate for a simple fetch but not rich.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, and the Args and Returns sections each add necessary information with no filler. Every line earns its place.

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 tool with only two required parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly and understand the result is a single transaction object. It could be slightly stronger by referencing list_transactions for multi-transaction needs, but that is not essential.

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 provides only bare string types with 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It does, especially for account_number, clarifying that the value must be the user-facing plain number rather than the internal account hash, and it identifies transaction_id as Schwab's transaction id.

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 first sentence, 'Get full details for a single transaction on one Schwab account,' uses a specific verb and resource and clearly scopes the operation. The word 'single' distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_transactions, and 'transaction' distinguishes it from get_order.

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 makes the use case clear: you need full details for one transaction on one account. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, such as pointing to list_transactions for multiple transactions, but the single-transaction phrasing provides sufficient context.

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