getTransactionsByPayee

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

The description discloses one key behavioral trait: 'excluding any pending transactions', which adds value beyond the input schema. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not cover other behavioral aspects such as pagination, sorting, or the effect of optional filters like since_date or type. The description is somewhat transparent but not comprehensive.

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 of 11 words, front-loading the core purpose. Every word is necessary; there is no redundancy or waste.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is somewhat minimal. It explains the core function and a key filter (pending exclusion), but does not hint at the filtering capabilities provided by optional parameters (since_date, until_date, type, last_knowledge_of_server). For a tool with 6 parameters and many siblings, more context about its role and behavior would improve completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for its 6 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, but it does provide overarching context about the return data (no pending transactions), which marginally improves understanding beyond the schema.

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 action (returns) and the resource (transactions for a specified payee) with a specific qualifier (excluding pending transactions). This distinguishes it from sibling transaction-fetching tools like getTransactionsByAccount or getTransactionsByCategory, which may not exclude pending transactions.

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 context (when you need transactions by payee), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like getTransactions or getTransactionsByAccount. It lacks guidance on when not to use it or mention of any prerequisites beyond the required plan_id and payee_id.

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