get_transactions

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a non-mutating operation, and the description adds useful behavioral context by stating the sort order, the string versus milliunit return format, and the 500-row cap. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 composed of three compact sentences, each carrying useful information. It front-loads the core purpose, then covers filters, result format, and limits with no wasted words.

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?

With an output schema present, the description appropriately focuses on behavior and inputs. It covers sorting, filters, return encoding, and row limits, making the tool callable in most cases. The only notable gap is the unexplained `plan` parameter, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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?

The description adds real meaning for account, since_date, until_date, unapproved_only, and limit, including date format, inclusivity, and the maximum limit. However, the `plan` parameter is not mentioned at all, and the mapping from 'date range' to the two date parameters is left implicit, so the agent still has to infer some schema details.

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 transactions with a specific sort order and describes the main filtering options. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling tools, which target different resources like plans, payees, accounts, and categories.

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 makes it clear this is the transaction-listing tool, so when an agent needs transactions this is the obvious choice. However, it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving usage guidance largely implied rather than stated.

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