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 adds minimal behavioral context, such as the option to filter and the search scope, but does not disclose pagination defaults, period resolution, or limit behavior, which would be useful beyond the annotations.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the optional filters. No wasted words; every phrase contributes to the core purpose.

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 9 parameters and an output schema, the description is minimal but functional. It does not mention defaults (period this_month, limit 50) or the relationship between from/to and period, though these are in the schema. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description could still benefit from a note on result size or pagination.

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 56%, and the description adds meaning by clarifying that 'search' applies to description and merchant, and grouping type/account/category as filters. However, it omits mention of tags, limit, and the period override logic, leaving some parameters under-explained relative to the coverage 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 clearly states the verb 'Returns' and the resource 'transactions', along with the key filters (type, account, category, text search). It is distinct from siblings like add_transaction or list_accounts by its focus on listing transactions, though it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling.

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 implies usage for retrieving transaction data but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., summary, quick_add) or when not to use it. The lack of exclusions or alternative references leaves some inference to the agent.

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