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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a valuable behavioral rule: rows each carry their own currency and must not be summed across currencies. This is exactly the kind of semantic context that goes beyond structured 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?

Very short, but the first sentence 'Search transactions' merely restates the title and adds no information. The second sentence is useful and specific. Overall it is efficient but slightly redundant in the opening.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover read-only/idempotent behavior, reducing the burden on the description. However, with 9 optional parameters and no required ones, it's unclear how filters combine, what a bare call returns, how limit applies, or which fields text searches. The currency warning addresses one important behavior but leaves significant gaps.

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 only 33%, covering to, from, and include_raw. Six parameters (text, limit, currency, account_id, category_id, unreviewed_only) have no schema descriptions. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and never mentions these filters. The currency note refers to result rows, not the currency parameter's semantics.

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 names a verb and resource: 'Search transactions.' Since there is no sibling named 'list_transactions,' the tool's purpose is unambiguous even though the title restates the name. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but none of them seem to overlap directly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, alternative selection, or conditions are provided. The only usage note is a post-aggregation warning about currencies, which is not guidance on when to invoke this tool vs siblings like review_queue, unparsed_alerts, or list_* tools.

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