advbox_list_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only says 'comprehensive filter options' and gives no insight into read-only nature, pagination, rate limits, authentication, or default behavior. The 'list' verb implies read-only, but that's not explicitly stated, leaving gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It efficiently captures the key action and resource, then moves on.

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 18 parameters and no output schema, the description is thin. It doesn't mention sorting, pagination, result limits, or any operation-specific behavior. While the schema covers filters, the description offers little beyond the tool name, so it falls short of complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it merely calls filters 'comprehensive'. No extra semantics are given.

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 uses a specific verb + resource: 'List financial transactions from Advbox'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that list customers, lawsuits, or tasks. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 context is clear: this is the go-to tool for listing financial transactions, directly distinguished from siblings by the resource type. However, it lacks explicit 'when to use vs alternatives' guidance or any exclusions, so it doesn't hit the top score.

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