bank_list_transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a behavioral limitation ('No payment or transfer endpoint is available to this MCP') but does not disclose pagination behavior, auth requirements, or what data is returned. This is acceptable but not enriching.

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 concise, with two sentences that each provide relevant information. The first sentence states the core function and scope, while the second adds a system limitation. It is appropriately sized and does not waste words, though the phrasing 'Call Garanti Account Transactions' is slightly awkward.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., a list of transactions), nor does it mention pagination, filtering behaviors, or the meaning of ambiguous parameters like direction or min/maxAmount. It relies heavily on annotations and schema, which are insufficient for 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 is only 25%, with only 'ISO date-time' provided for from/to and no explanations for page, pageSize, direction, minAmount, maxAmount, or accountRef. The description mentions 'account and date range' which adds some meaning to three params, but the majority of parameters remain unexplained, and the description does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 the tool calls Garanti Account Transactions for an account and date range, which clearly identifies the resource and scoping. The verb 'Call' is somewhat generic, but combined with the name 'bank_list_transactions', the purpose is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like bank_get_balances.

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 limited guidance on when to use this tool, only noting that no payment or transfer endpoint is available. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like bank_get_balances for balances or bank_list_accounts for accounts, so the usage context is only partially communicated.

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