get_transactions_by_customers

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only indicates a read operation via the verb 'get,' but does not explain report behavior such as how date ranges or zero-balance transactions are handled, whether the report is aggregated, or what data it returns. This leaves significant behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 a single near-tautological sentence that merely restates the tool name with the word 'report' appended. While it is short, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise, failing to add value beyond the name.

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 tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-line description is grossly inadequate. The agent has no context about behavior, parameters, or return values, making correct invocation nearly impossible.

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 only 25% (fromDate and toDate), and the description provides no parameter information whatsoever. The many boolean parameters (noneZero, showZero, noneTransactions) and accountIds are entirely unexplained, so an agent cannot determine how to set them correctly.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Get the transactions by customers report.' It clarifies that the tool retrieves a report aggregating transactions by customer, which distinguishes it from list tools that return raw transactions. However, it does not differentiate from sibling report tools like get_general_ledger or get_receivable_aging_summary.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_profit_loss or list_customers. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer from the name. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are provided.

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