List Bank Transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-destructive read operation. The description adds no behavioral information beyond what annotations provide. It does not contradict annotations.

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 duplicated in English and Spanish, making it twice as long as necessary. While it is front-loaded with English, the bilingual content is inefficient and reduces conciseness.

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?

The description adequately covers the tool's purpose and common filters. Given that an output schema exists and schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks details about pagination behavior (cursor vs offset) and ordering.

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% and all parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description mentions filter types but does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It is appropriate to give a 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 tool's purpose: 'List bank transactions with optional filters.' It specifies the resource (bank transactions) and the action (list), and mentions the available filter dimensions. It distinguishes from sibling tools like categorize_transaction or match_transaction_to_invoice which perform different operations.

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 provides context by listing use cases: 'useful for reconciliation, expense matching, and cash flow analysis.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast it with alternatives such as search_invoices or list_expenses, which could also be used for financial analysis.

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