list_unapproved_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 correctly characterizes the operation as a read/list with a clear domain concept (unapproved vs. approved), but does not mention permissions, pagination, return format, or whether approval status is mutable via other tools. For a read-only list tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is adequate but has gaps.

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?

Two concise sentences that are front-loaded: the core purpose first, then a crucial semantic clarification about the separation from categorization. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is nearly complete for an agent to invoke it correctly. The only minor gap is the absence of any note on return volume or pagination, but that is beyond the typical scope for a list tool without an output schema.

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 100%, and the single parameter budget_id is fully documented in the schema with a default. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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 states a specific verb (lists) and resource (unapproved transactions), and adds parenthetical clarification of what those transactions typically are (bank-imported awaiting review). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling list_uncategorized_transactions and approve_transaction.

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 implicitly tells the agent when to use it (to find transactions that haven't been approved), and the second sentence distinguishes it from categorization workflows. However, it doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use it.

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