list_bank_transactions

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, it discloses the external web-interface source and the absence of matching status, both operationally useful details. Listing returned fields also sets expectations, though it adds nothing about freshness, ordering, or truncation behavior.

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?

Three compact statements front-load the resource and date scope, then cover the source and a material limitation. The field list is useful because there is no output schema, and there is no filler.

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?

Together with the fully documented schema and safety annotations, this is enough to select the tool and construct a valid date-bounded request, while the field list partly compensates for the missing output schema. It remains short on ordering or truncation behavior and gives no route for users who need matching status.

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. “For a period” loosely reinforces dateFrom and dateTo, but the description adds no parameter syntax, defaults, filtering interactions, or constraints 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 identifies a period-based read of bank transactions from Számlázz.hu and enumerates the principal returned fields. “Bank transactions” distinguishes the resource from the invoice and receipt siblings, although it does not explicitly contrast with any particular sibling.

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 period scope provides concrete selection context, and “No matching status included” supplies a useful exclusion for status-aware workflows. It does not say which alternative to use when matching status is required or provide other explicit when-to-use guidance.

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