brc_list_customer_account_trans

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the basic function without mentioning whether transactions are all or filtered, pagination, return format, or side effects. For a read operation, this is insufficient.

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 single-sentence description is very concise, but it lacks structure and depth. While it avoids verbosity, it could include more useful details without becoming overly long.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'account transactions' includes (e.g., dates, amounts, types) or any constraints like date ranges. The tool is simple, but the description 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 coverage is 100% for both parameters (itemId and companyName), with descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 'Gets a customer's account transactions' uses a clear verb (Gets) and specifies the resource (customer's account transactions). It distinguishes from similar tools like brc_list_supplier_account_trans by focusing on customers. However, it does not differentiate from other customer list tools (e.g., brc_list_customer_quotes, brc_list_customers) beyond the resource name.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like brc_list_customer_quotes or brc_list_sales_invoices. The description omits context for selection, leaving the agent to infer based solely on the resource name.

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