list_card_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does list the fields returned, giving some behavioral context. However, it fails to mention pagination behavior, ordering, or whether the data is historical and immutable. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and key output fields. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it could be slightly restructured for readability, but overall it is concise without wasted words.

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, the description helpfully lists the returned fields. However, it omits important contextual details for a list tool, such as pagination behavior (whether the limit parameter controls total rows or per-page), ordering (chronological or otherwise), and any potential timeouts. Thus it is adequate but incomplete.

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%, meaning the input schema already describes both parameters (card_id and limit) with details like defaults and constraints. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides, earning 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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'transactions for a card'. It also enumerates specific fields returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_card or freeze_card which have different purposes.

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 implies usage for viewing card transaction history but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_spending_analytics or list_disputes. There is no mention of exclusions or limitations.

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