banque_transactions

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

Despite no annotations, the description thoroughly explains the 'etat' field, including the distinction between 'observe', 'ancien', and 'inconnu', and warns against misinterpreting 'inconnu' as a zero balance or failure. This provides strong transparency about caching and data reliability.

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 and well-structured, using two sentences to cover purpose, usage, and the important 'etat' semantics. Every sentence adds value, with no 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 simplicity of the tool (two optional parameters) and the lack of an output schema, the description adequately covers the essential behavior, including the meaning of the 'etat' field. It doesn't specify all returned transaction fields, but that is often assumed for a transaction list.

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 schema already fully describes both parameters ('jours' as days with default, 'compte' as identifier with fallback). The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 that the tool retrieves past transactions for an account, ordered most recent first. It also provides specific use cases like verifying a due date or finding a purchase, which clarifies its purpose. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', so it's not maximally direct.

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 specific scenarios when to use the tool ('check an announced due date' or 'find a specific purchase'), which serves as guidance. It doesn't explicitly compare to sibling tools, but the context is sufficient for typical use.

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