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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals this is a safe read operation. The description adds one behavioral detail beyond the annotation: results are ordered from newest to oldest. It does not disclose anything about return shape, pagination behavior, or data recency, but this is partially acceptable given the annotation covers the main safety profile.

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 filler. It communicates the essential purpose and the key ordering behavior without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with no required parameters and fully documented schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema present, the description does not describe what the returned transaction history contains, which leaves some ambiguity about the exact data shape an agent should expect.

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 schema fully documents all five optional parameters including filters, defaults, and limits. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 states a clear verb-resource relationship: it retrieves the user's transaction history, and it adds ordering information ('od najnowszej' = newest first). It is unambiguous about the resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like get_activity_feed or get_realized_pnl.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as submit_broker_transactions, get_activity_feed, or get_realized_pnl. It does not mention that all parameters are optional, that no filters return the full history, or any scenarios where a sibling tool would be preferred.

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