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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context: it builds a TransactionSearchInput, returns a page of transaction nodes with specific fields, and mentions the underlying GraphQL query. This goes beyond the annotation but does not cover pagination cursors or error handling.

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 concise—three sentences that front-load the core purpose, then detail the search input and return structure. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description adequately covers the input mechanism and return fields. It lacks details on pagination (beyond 'first' parameter) and error scenarios, but overall it provides sufficient guidance for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds semantic value by explaining the operators for each parameter (e.g., status uses `in`, createdAt uses `greaterThanOrEqualTo`/`lessThanOrEqualTo`). This enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 tool searches transactions by date range, status, and customer. It specifies the use of operators (status `in`, createdAt comparisons, customer.id `is`) and differentiates from sibling tools like braintree_find_transaction which retrieves a single transaction.

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 explains how to use the tool (search with filters) but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives (e.g., braintree_find_transaction for a single transaction) or when not to use it. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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