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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that by framing the tool as a deep link/navigation action and explaining that token sets the base set while keyword/category/date filters refine it.

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 definition is front-loaded with what it returns and when to use it, followed by intent examples and the report-tool alternative. It is dense and useful, though the long list of examples is slightly more verbose than strictly necessary.

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 navigation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, selection criteria, and how the main parameters combine. It is nearly complete, with the only notable omission being how it differs from the sibling list_transactions for raw transaction retrieval.

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 the schema already carries detailed parameter semantics, including the token forms. The description adds useful composition semantics beyond the schema: token establishes the base set, and keyword/category/date filters optionally refine it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: a deep link to a transactions search over raw individual line-item records, with concrete fields listed. It clearly distinguishes the line-item scope from aggregate reports, so an agent can understand what this tool is for even without opening the schema.

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?

Gives strong when-to-use guidance with several user-intent examples ('show me the transactions for X', 'what did I buy at Y', duplicates/transfers, uncategorised, review) and explicitly routes totals/breakdowns/trends/charts to report tools. The main gap is that it does not name the sibling list_transactions, which is the closest alternative for raw transaction retrieval.

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