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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description only restates capabilities already visible in the schema (filtering/sorting/pagination) and adds no new behavioral context such as default page size, result truncation, or permission 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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the verb, but the duplicated 'Supports:' structure and missing period make it slightly awkward. No redundant content.

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 tool's complexity (nested filter object, 6 top-level parameters, advanced filters), the description provides only a high-level summary. Output schema covers return structure, but usage guidance for advanced filters and pagination is lacking.

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 description lists key filter dimensions (account, counterparty, card, types, statuses, date range, amounts) and sorting fields, adding meaning beyond the schema property names. However, it omits many advanced filter options (providers, companyIds, searchTerm, fieldFilters, relatedFieldFilters) and doesn't explain pageToken or includeTotalCount semantics, so coverage is partial.

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 states 'List transactions' with filtering, sorting, and pagination, clearly identifying the operation as a read/list. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like transaction_get_transaction and transaction_get_summary, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 clear context for when to use: when a list of transactions is needed with filtering, sorting, or pagination. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so no explicit when-not guidance.

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