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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds materially useful behavioral detail: case-insensitive substring matching, literal (non-regex) matching, and the safety consequence that bracket-containing queries cannot hang the server. This shapes how an agent should construct queries and calibrates expectations.

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 entire description is a single front-loaded sentence that states the core behavior first and then adds a precise, relevant caveat about regex behavior. Every part earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and schema covering all parameters, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke this simple search tool correctly. It does not describe the return shape or ordering, but the tool's behavior is straightforward and the lack of an output schema lowers the burden.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the query parameter is matched as a case-insensitive substring against four specific fields, which the schema does not state. It does not add anything about to/from or limit, but those are already adequately documented in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('transactions'), and explicitly enumerates the searchable fields: description, counterparty, category, or account. It clearly communicates the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate from them.

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 this is the right tool when you need to locate transactions by text contained in certain fields, but it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to transactions_list or statement_summary. The 'never a regex' note is a behavior constraint, not usage guidance.

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