get_transaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool returns status, amount, card info, and timestamps, which helps the agent understand the operation. However, it omits obvious behavioral specifics like what happens when the transaction does not exist, whether card info is masked, or any authorization requirements.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by a compact list of return fields. Every word earns its place; it is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what it finds and what it returns. Minor gaps remain, such as error behavior when the ID is not found and whether card info is returned in full or masked, but nothing critical is missing 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with the TransactionId parameter already described as 'ID транзакции' and having exclusiveMinimum 0. The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond confirming that the lookup is by ID, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Find') with a precise resource ('transaction by ID'), and lists the returned fields (status, amount, card info, timestamps). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_transactions or payment operation tools, leaving no ambiguity about what it does.

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 intended usage is implied: use this when you have a specific transaction ID and want its details. However, the description does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as list_transactions, nor does it state when not to use it. The guidance is adequate but leaves the routing to inference.

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