report_transaction_list

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the most important trait: unbounded date ranges yield very large responses. It is silent on read-only semantics, permissions, response shape, and whether results are truncated or paginated, so the disclosure is partial rather than complete.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the warning, then the capability summary. No filler, though the final capability list overlaps with what the schema already enumerates and could have been spent on sibling routing instead.

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?

For a report tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers purpose, the dominant failure mode (oversized responses), and the available input families. The remaining gap is the params wrapper and the absence of any routing rule among the three sibling transaction-list reports.

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 description groups the inputs into categories (date range, accounting method, filters, detail extras) which helps an agent orient among 16 nested properties. Critically, it never mentions that every option must be nested inside the required "params" object, which is the one structural fact the schema leaves undocumented and the easiest way to mis-call this tool.

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?

"Run a Transaction List report showing all transactions" gives a specific verb and resource and implies an unfiltered, all-transaction scope, which implicitly contrasts with the by_customer / by_vendor / with_splits siblings. However, it never names those siblings, so the agent has to infer the distinction rather than being told it.

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?

There is real operational guidance: use 1-3 month ranges because large ranges produce very large responses. That tells the agent how to call it safely but not when to prefer it over report_transaction_list_with_splits or report_transaction_list_by_customer, which is the more consequential selection decision given four near-identical siblings.

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