get_transaction_token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a lookup/mapping operation (likely read-only) but does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The behavioral intent is clear but lacks depth.

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?

Three sentences: definition, importance, usage directive. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. Front-loaded with the key action verb and resource.

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 covers purpose and usage well but omits return value structure, pagination, or error handling. Given no output schema, more context about the response format would improve completeness. However, the core context for the mapping task is present.

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%, so the description does not add meaning beyond schema descriptions. The description reinforces the mapping purpose but does not elaborate on parameter usage or constraints. Baseline 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 ('Map') and resource ('Core API transaction tokens to DiVA report transaction tokens'), clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like get_authorizations or get_loads. It states its critical role in reconciliation workflows.

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 explicitly states the tool is for reconciling transactions between Core API and DiVA reporting, giving clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools, though none seem obvious among siblings.

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