query_transaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool queries status, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior beyond basic purpose.

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 extremely concise with just two words ('Query transaction status'), which is front-loaded and wastes no space. Every word earns its place by conveying the core action and resource, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 complexity of a transaction query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'status' includes (e.g., success, pending, failed), the return format, or error handling. For a tool that likely returns critical payment information, this lack of context is inadequate.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'pf_payment_id' clearly documented as 'PayFast payment ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or context for the ID. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Query transaction status' clearly indicates the tool's function (querying) and resource (transaction status), but it's vague about what 'transaction status' entails. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_payment' or 'refund_payment' by focusing on querying rather than modifying, but lacks specificity on what aspects of status are retrieved.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a payment ID), exclusions, or how it differs from other query-related tools like 'get_balance' or 'validate_signature'. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description.

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