get_transactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behavioral traits: returns up to 100 transactions sorted most-recent first. This is good context for an agent. Missing details like authentication needs or side effects, but given it's a fetch operation, this is acceptable.

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 concise sentences: purpose, filtering, output characteristics. No redundancy and every sentence adds value.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers purpose, filtering, and output limits. However, the unexplained 'days' parameter is a gap in completeness.

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 has 3 parameters: days, search, min_amount. Description explains search (keyword, merchant/description) and min_amount (dollar amount) but omits any explanation of the 'days' parameter. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate fully but does not.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Fetch' and resource 'transactions' with scope 'from all connected accounts'. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_accounts (accounts) and get_net_worth (summary) which are clearly different.

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?

Description mentions filtering capabilities (keyword, min_amount) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide when-not-to-use scenarios. However, sibling tool names make the differentiation obvious.

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