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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, yet the description adds substantial context beyond them: totals and sums computed across all pages, that raw memos are omitted unless include_raw_text, that rows indicate prior existence, and explicit prompt-injection handling for untrusted_text and flagged names.

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 core purpose plus filter and return summary is front-loaded in the first sentence, and every subsequent sentence carries real information. It is dense but not padded, though the run-on enumeration of return fields is slightly sprawling.

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?

With no output schema and 17 parameters, the description carries the return-value burden and does so well, covering counterparty names, category, linkage, attribution and cross-page aggregates. Pagination mechanics are left to the cursor/limit schema descriptions, which is acceptable.

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 only 47% across 17 parameters, so the description must compensate. It names most filter dimensions (company, account, dates, amounts, direction, category, counterparty, source, status) and explains include_raw_text, but leaves limit, cursor, response_format and needs_review to the schema, so it only partially fills the gap.

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 verb and resource ("Find transactions") and enumerates the filter dimensions it supports, so an agent knows exactly what it does. It does not differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling query_transactions, which is the one thing needed for 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?

Usage is implied through the query syntax and the note that the same query works in create_rule, giving some routing context. However, it never says when to prefer this over query_transactions or search_invoices, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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