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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond this by explaining default date filtering, how include_scheduled changes the running-balance anchor to the projected balance, and the is_scheduled flag on future rows. It also tells callers the response will echo include_scheduled and include projected_balance, providing concrete behavioral detail.

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 main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with default behavior, parameter details, and return values following in logical order. Every sentence adds value, and the longer include_scheduled explanation is justified because it covers subtle running-balance math.

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 there is no output schema, the Returns section adequately describes what callers get: account info, transaction history with running balances, the echoed include_scheduled flag, and projected_balance when scheduled rows are included. The description also covers defaults and edge behavior, making it complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it fully compensates. The Args section explains account_id, limit (including the max of 200 that the schema omits), and include_scheduled in behavioral terms. This is more informative than the schema alone.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get transaction history for a specific account with running balance.' It also explains the return orientation and running-balance column, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. The name and description together clearly distinguish this from shared-account or plain list-transaction tools.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: viewing an individual account's transaction history with a running balance, and it explains the default date filter and the include_scheduled option. It does not explicitly name alternatives like get_shared_account_history or get_account_details, so it stops short of full when-not-to-use guidance.

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