borderou_transaction_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only mentions what data is returned ('matched invoice/proforma details') but does not state whether this is a read-only safe operation, whether it requires permissions, what happens if the transaction is not found, or any rate-limit concerns. For a get operation with no annotation coverage, some transparency about safety/read-only nature would be expected, though 'Get detailed information' implicitly signals a read.

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 a single sentence that states the core purpose concisely without extraneous words or filler. It front-loads the primary action ('Get detailed information') and adds the key distinguishing detail (matched invoice/proforma details). However, it misses opportunities to add sibling differentiation or usage context in the available space.

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?

With 2 parameters at 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and a straightforward 'get by id' operation, the description conveys the tool's scope adequately. The sibling tools include borderou_transactions (list), borderou_transaction_update, and borderou_transactions_save, so the purpose is reasonably clear. However, no output schema exists to explain the return shape, and the description does not mention the companion tool borderou_transaction_available_invoices or how this differs from other borderou retrieval paths.

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% — both 'id' and 'companyId' have descriptions ('Transaction ID' and 'Company UUID override...'). The description itself does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given full coverage. The baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the documentation weight and the description doesn't add extra semantic detail about the parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('specific borderou transaction') and adds the distinguishing feature of including 'matched invoice/proforma details'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like borderou_transactions (list) and borderou_transaction_update. It distinguishes its purpose effectively.

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 does not provide when-to-use guidance or explicitly distinguish from alternatives like borderou_transactions or borderou_transaction_available_invoices. The purpose is implied to be retrieving a single transaction's detail, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over the list or update variants, and no stated exclusions.

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