get_transaction_splits

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

No annotations exist to indicate behavior. The description merely states 'Get split information', implying a read operation, but omits details about authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling (e.g., what happens if transaction_id is invalid).

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 two short sentences that state the purpose and list the parameter immediately. No extraneous words; every element serves a clear function.

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 existence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. However, it lacks context about usage prerequisites, related tools, or behavioral specifics. For a simple retrieval tool, it is adequate but not thorough.

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 parameter transaction_id has no schema description (0% coverage), but the tool description provides a meaningful label ('The ID of the transaction'). This adds essential context beyond the schema's bare type declaration.

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 specific verb 'Get' and resource 'split information for a transaction', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_transactions or get_accounts. However, it does not elaborate on what 'split information' entails, so clarity is slightly diminished.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_transaction_details). It does not specify that the tool should only be used after obtaining a transaction ID, nor does it mention any conditions or prerequisites.

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