get_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must state behavioral traits. It discloses the return fields and the scope ('all journal entries'), but omits details like pagination, ordering, or any potential limits. It also does not explicitly state whether this is a safe read-only operation, though 'Retrieve' implies it.

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?

Four sentences, all content-bearing, with the main action first and supporting details after. No redundant or generic statements.

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 annotations and output schema, the description lists return fields and gives a practical workflow. It does not mention pagination or other runtime behavior, which is a minor gap, but the tool's purpose and prerequisites are well covered.

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 already provides descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description reinforces glAccountCode and date range, and adds a pointer to get_gl_accounts, but does not add further meaning for the optional administrationId or parameter formats.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('journal entries for a specific GL account code within a date range'), and the return fields are listed. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_transaction_details by focusing on GL account-level filtering.

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?

Provides explicit use case: 'Use this for bank transactions' and prerequisite: 'find the bank GL code with get_gl_accounts first'. However, it does not name any alternative tools to avoid, so it's clear on when to use but not when not to.

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