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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful behavior: results are in euros and sorted newest first, and it lists the record categories returned. It stops short of stating that the operation is a read-only query or saying anything about pagination/volume behavior beyond what the limit param implies.

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?

Two sentences, no waste. The core content (what is returned, in what currency, in what order) is front-loaded, and the optional-filter note follows. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a read-only, 3-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned, ordering, currency, and the filter dimensions. The main residual gap is that it says nothing about return shape or how filters combine, which the absent output schema would otherwise have required the description to carry.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (year, asset, limit) are already fully documented in the schema, including ranges and defaults. The description's mention of asset and year filtering adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific resource (user-recorded transactions) and enumerates its kinds (buys, sells, fees), which immediately distinguishes it from aggregate siblings like get_pnl or get_portfolio. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

"Optional filters by asset and year" implies the intended usage context (focused lookups) but never states when to reach for this tool versus get_pnl, get_realized_gains, or get_portfolio. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives are named.

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