list_bank_transactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, requires permissions, or returns a specific format. The description is silent on all behavioral aspects beyond requiring teamId.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The fragment 'Kontoauszug lines for a team space' lacks grammatical completeness and essential context. The second sentence repeats requirement information already in the schema, adding no value.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose clearly, describe return behavior, or elaborate on parameter semantics. This is completely inadequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 has three parameters (to, from, teamId) with 0% coverage in the description. The description only says 'Requires teamId,' which is redundant with the schema's required field. It provides no explanation of what 'to' and 'from' represent or any additional meaning for teamId. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 the resource ('Kontoauszug lines') and scope ('for a team space'), but lacks an explicit verb indicating the action. The tool name implies 'list', but the description itself is a noun phrase, leaving the purpose somewhat ambiguous. It does not clearly differentiate from sibling list tools beyond the specific resource type.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only usage hint is 'Requires teamId,' which is a parameter requirement rather than situational advice. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred contexts.

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