search_transactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this queries live data, supports pagination via page/page_size, and returns specific fields. It does not mention rate limits or sort behavior, but for a read-oriented search tool this is solid coverage.

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 short, purposeful sentences: scope and live-data warning first, then filters, then return shape and pagination. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description states the main returned fields. It covers the core search scenarios, filter categories, and pagination behavior, while the schema handles parameter formats. The tool is fully selectable and invokable from this description alone.

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 100%, so each of the 8 parameters is already documented. The description adds value by grouping parameters into keyword, date-range, and amount-range categories and by calling out pagination, but it adds no format or constraint details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb + resource: 'Search accounting transactions in Rentvine (live data).' It names the exact filters (keyword, date range, amount range) and the returned fields, making it immediately distinct from the flat list_* sibling tools. No tautology or ambiguity.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: searching live accounting transactions with flexible filters, and using pagination for large result sets. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops just short of a 5.

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