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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the filter scope (date/type/status) but does not disclose pagination behavior, result shape, or any other runtime characteristics beyond what annotations provide.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words or filler. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and a key feature.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, no enum constraints, and no schema-level descriptions, the one-line description is not sufficient. It omits pagination semantics, query object structure, return value expectations, and further filter details, leaving the agent with significant ambiguity for correct invocation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description needed to compensate, but it only mentions that the 'query' object holds filters. It does not clarify the meaning of the other six parameters, such as page, page_size, start_date, end_date, type, and status, and may even confuse by implying filters are only inside 'query' when several top-level fields also represent filters.

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 a specific action (list) on a specific resource (financial transactions) and mentions the available filter dimensions (date/type/status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like advbox_get_transaction (singular retrieval) and advbox_list_customers/advbox_list_lawsuits/advbox_list_posts (different resource types).

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 multiple financial transactions with optional filters, and contrasts implicitly with get_transaction. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, no pagination notes, and 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.