ghl_get_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention pagination behavior, date filtering, return format, or any side effects. It offers minimal transparency beyond the implied read-only nature.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded, though it may be too brief to convey necessary details. However, as a short statement it is well structured.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It lacks critical context such as pagination handling, date range format, filtering by contact, and expected response structure. The one-sentence description is insufficient for a tool with this complexity.

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 schema provides no descriptions for any of the 5 parameters (0% coverage), and the description does not explain them. Parameter names like 'page', 'limit', 'startAt', 'endAt', and 'contactId' are self-explanatory to some extent, but the description does not clarify their format, constraints, or usage, leaving the agent without essential semantic information.

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 retrieves payment transactions, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('payment transactions'). It is distinct from siblings like ghl_get_orders or ghl_get_invoices, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from them, so it lacks strong sibling differentiation.

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. There is no mention of preferred scenarios, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools like ghl_get_orders or ghl_get_invoices. The description gives no context for decision-making.

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