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

Annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by mentioning that results are 'compact source transactions' and include unprocessed or partially linked activity. It does not disclose behavior such as pagination defaults, result ordering, or filtering restrictions, but it does add meaningful scope 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?

The description is a single dense sentence with no fluffable padding, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The phrase 'called Raw Transactions in Tokenbooks' is slightly redundant with the title, but it helps establish domain terminology, so the sentence earns its place.

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 the tool's complexity (13 parameters, required workspaceRef and portfolioRef, multiple filter options), the description alone is not enough to guide correct invocation. The output schema and annotations help, but the low schema description coverage and absence of parameter guidance leave significant gaps for an agent trying to construct a correct call.

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?

The input schema has 13 parameters with only about 15% described in the schema, and the description provides no guidance for workspaceRef, portfolioRef, date filters, chain filters, or processingState. The only parameter-related signal is the pointer to get_raw_transaction, which does not explain how to use any of this tool's parameters.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Find compact source transactions') and clarifies what qualifies as raw transactions ('unprocessed or partially linked activity'). It also points to get_raw_transaction for detail inspection, which helps differentiate the list tool from the detail tool, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from other list tools like list_portfolio_transactions.

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 phrase 'Find compact source transactions first' suggests this is the entry point for raw transaction exploration, and the explicit pointer to get_raw_transaction gives a follow-up workflow. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of list_portfolio_transactions or other list alternatives, and no exclusions are stated.

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