report_transaction_list_by_vendor

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, with a practical mitigation. It does not state that the tool is read-only/non-mutating, mention permission requirements, or describe response structure or pagination for an unbounded result set.

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 purpose front-loaded and the size warning placed before the capability summary, so the most actionable constraint is not buried. The final sentence is low-value filler that repeats what the schema already lists.

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 a single required nested `params` object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential risk (response size) and confirms the supported filter families. It falls short on disambiguating among the several other transaction-list report siblings and on confirming the read-only nature of the call.

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 phrase "supports date range, accounting method, filters, and detail extras" only echoes categories already enumerated with per-field descriptions in the nested schema, and "detail extras" maps to no parameter at all, which risks steering an agent toward a nonexistent option. The schema's nested property descriptions do the real work here, so the description adds little meaning.

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 and resource ("Run a Transaction List by Vendor report"), and the vendor-scoped variant is inferable from the name. However, it never explicitly contrasts with the obvious siblings report_transaction_list, report_transaction_list_with_splits, and report_transaction_list_by_customer, so an agent must infer the difference from the tool name alone.

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 a concrete operational guideline ("use 1-3 month ranges") motivated by response size, which is genuinely useful. What is missing is selection guidance: no statement of when to choose this vendor-grouped report over the generic transaction list or the by-customer variant, and no prerequisites such as needing vendor records to group by.

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