sc_overnight_transactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool lists transactions with filters, but does not mention read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination details, or data freshness. The schema implies pagination via cursor and page_size, but the description does not explain this behavior.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and no superfluous words. Every sentence adds value, meeting the 'earn its place' criterion.

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 7 parameters, no schema descriptions, and an output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not explain pagination, time filtering, search, or the return format. The output schema exists but the description offers no hints about what the tool returns.

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 is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions type_filter='interest' as an example, but leaves 6 other parameters (cursor, to_time, from_time, page_size, search_term, savings_account_id) completely unexplained. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema field names.

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 lists overnight savings account transactions with filters, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('overnight savings account transactions'). The example with type_filter='interest' further clarifies the purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sc_transactions by specifying 'overnight savings account'.

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?

The description provides a concrete usage example ('Use type_filter='interest' to review interest payment history'), which implies a scenario. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., sc_transactions for general transactions), nor does it offer exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is helpful but sparse.

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