ghl_payment_transaction_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the HTTP method (GET), endpoint path, and OAuth scopes, which are consistent with annotations and provide useful implementation details.

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 concise and front-loaded with the title. It includes necessary details (endpoint, scopes) without unnecessary fluff, though it could be slightly more compact.

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?

The description lacks information about the return format or response structure. Since there is no output schema, the agent needs to know what fields are returned, but this is omitted. The description covers the purpose and usage but not the output, which is a gap for a retrieval tool.

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 descriptions for all parameters. The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond noting that transactionId is the path parameter, but since the schema is comprehensive, a baseline score 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 clearly states the tool retrieves information for a specific transaction by its unique ID, using phrases like 'Get Transaction by ID' and 'fetch details for a single transaction.' It differentiates from listing tools by focusing on a single resource.

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 explains when to use the tool (to fetch details for a single transaction) and includes OAuth scopes. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context of siblings (e.g., ghl_payment_transaction_list) provides implicit guidance.

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