get_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the filtering behavior and the default limit of 50 records, providing some transparency about pagination/result caps. However, it doesn't mention behavioral nuances like whether filters can be combined, the behavior of conflicting filters (e.g., max_amount < min_amount), or any rate limits.

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 front-loaded with the main intent followed by a clean, well-organized bulleted list of all 9 parameters. Each bullet is terse and single-purpose. Slightly verbose given the number of parameters, but every line earns its place since schema coverage is zero.

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?

For a 9-parameter filter tool, the description is quite complete — every parameter is documented with format and semantics, and the default limit is stated. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary. Minor gaps include lack of guidance on filter combination behavior and no mention of the tool's relationship to get_uncategorized_transactions, but overall this is solid coverage.

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% — the JSON schema provides only types and defaults with no descriptions. The tool description fully compensates by documenting every single parameter with its type, format (YYYY-MM, YYYY-MM-DD), and semantic meaning (e.g., 'transactions on or after', 'amount >= min_amount', 'keyword search matching description or category'). This is comprehensive parameter documentation.

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 a clear verb+resource ('Get transactions') and explicitly defines the scope as filter-based retrieval across 9 criteria. It distinguishes well from siblings like add_transaction, update_transaction, and get_summary since it's clearly a read/list operation with filtering.

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 explains how to use filters (each parameter with format and semantics) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives. Siblings like get_uncategorized_transactions and spending_trends exist, but no exclusions or alternative suggestions are given. The usage is clearly implied for filtered transaction listing but not differentiated from these siblings.

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