report_transaction_list_by_customer

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one real behavioral trait beyond the schema: large date ranges produce very large responses, which affects how the tool should be called. It omits other behavior an agent would want — that it is a read-only report, whether results are grouped/totaled by customer, and anything about pagination or output shape.

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 short sentences with the risk warning placed early, which is the right front-loading for a tool that can blow up response size. The final sentence is the weakest, since "filters, and detail extras" is vague filler that could be dropped or made specific.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a nested 17-field params object, the description should say more than it does — particularly what the report returns and what "detail extras" enables. The response-size warning is the main piece of context that would otherwise be missing, so it is adequate but clearly incomplete for a report tool of 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?

Schema description coverage on the top-level parameter is effectively zero, so the description is expected to compensate, and it largely does not. "Supports date range, accounting method, filters, and detail extras" is a category-level restatement, and "detail extras" refers to something not defined anywhere in the schema (the nested object merely permits additionalProperties). The detailed per-field semantics live in the nested property descriptions rather than here.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Run a Transaction List by Customer report"), so an agent knows exactly what is produced. It does not, however, distinguish this from close siblings such as report_transaction_list, report_transaction_list_with_splits, or report_transaction_list_by_vendor, leaving the choice between them to inference.

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 concrete usage guidance for date ranges ("use 1-3 month ranges") tied to a stated risk, which is genuinely actionable. But it gives no guidance on when to choose this report over the transaction-list siblings, nor on prerequisites such as permissions or which filters combine meaningfully.

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