List Scheduled YNAB Transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, which cover safety and idempotency. The description adds the 'bounded date horizon' scoping, but it does not explain how projection works, whether pagination exists, or what GET-like behavior is expected. Beyond the annotations, the added behavioral context is minimal but non-contradictory.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and scope directly, earning its place. While it is brief, it is not verbose and is appropriately concise for its purpose.

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?

Despite good annotations, the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and a description that lacks details on the returned data structure, how 'project' is computed, and how filters affect results. The description is too high-level to give an agent a complete understanding of the tool's behavior without further inference.

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 29%, with most parameters (payee_id, account_id, category_id) lacking descriptions. The description only hints at date bounding and does not elaborate on the meaning of individual parameters or how they interact with the date range. It fails to compensate for the low schema 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 uses specific verbs ('list and project') and a clear resource ('scheduled YNAB transactions') with a scope ('bounded date horizon'). The inclusion of 'scheduled' distinguishes it from the sibling tool ynab_list_transactions, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for scheduled/projected transactions through the word 'scheduled' and the date horizon, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus ynab_list_transactions or mention any alternative. No when-not-to-use guidance or exclusions are provided.

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