report_transaction_list_with_splits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a real behavioral trait beyond the schema: response payloads can explode with wide date ranges, with a recommended mitigation. It says nothing about permissions, pagination, whether results are capped, or whether the output is row-per-split, which leaves meaningful gaps for a report tool.

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 what the tool produces and immediately followed by the warning that constrains invocation. No filler or restated title, though the trailing 'Supports date range, accounting method, filters, and detail extras' is low-value boilerplate given the schema.

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?

Purpose and a size caveat are covered, but for a report with a large nested parameter object, no output schema, and no annotations, an agent still cannot tell what a 'split' row looks like, whether results are paginated or truncated, or how this report differs in output from report_transaction_list. The last sentence gestures at capabilities without describing them.

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 only groups parameters into vague buckets ('date range, accounting method, filters, and detail extras'), adding no semantics beyond the schema. The top-level 'params' object has no description, but the nested properties are individually well documented with formats, enums, and the date_macro-vs-start/end mutual exclusion, so the schema does the real work and a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific report ('Transaction List with Splits') and clarifies what it returns ('transactions with line-item splits'), which implicitly separates it from the plain report_transaction_list and the by-customer/by-vendor variants. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

It gives one concrete operational guideline — keep date ranges to 1-3 months to avoid oversized responses — which is genuinely useful when-to-use advice. However, it never says when to choose this report over report_transaction_list, report_transaction_list_by_customer, or report_general_ledger, which is the harder routing decision for an agent facing ~130 siblings.

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