List Transactions

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It adds value by warning about the render field with tiered rendering guidance, but does not mention auth, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. This is modest but helpful transparency.

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?

Two sentences, both essential. First sentence conveys purpose and scope. Second sentence delivers a critical behavioral hint (render field). No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key info.

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 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is somewhat sparse. It covers purpose and one important response detail, but omits pagination, sorting, default behavior (e.g., what happens with no filters), and return structure beyond the render field mention. Adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100%, meaning each parameter already has a description. The tool description provides a high-level summary ('date range and account filters') but adds no new semantic details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 financial transactions with optional date range and account filters, which distinguishes it from other list_* siblings by specifying the resource type and common filter parameters.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_financial_summary or search_customers). The description implies usage via optional filters but does not provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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