api_indexer_search_for_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'search' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only (likely, but not stated), pagination behavior (implied by 'nextToken' but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with no criteria. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple search tool, though it could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness. It's front-loaded but under-specified rather than concise.

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 complexity (16 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination, error handling, or how criteria interact. For a search tool with many filters, more context is needed to guide effective use, especially without annotations or output schema.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 16 parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, as it only vaguely references 'various criteria' without detailing any parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance understanding.

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 'Search for transactions with various criteria' clearly states the verb ('search') and resource ('transactions'), but it's generic and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'api_indexer_lookup_account_transactions' or 'api_indexer_lookup_transaction_by_id'. It lacks specificity about what kind of transactions or search scope.

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. With multiple transaction-related sibling tools (e.g., lookup_account_transactions, lookup_transaction_by_id, search_for_accounts), the description offers no context about use cases, prerequisites, or distinctions, leaving the agent to guess based on names alone.

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