list_transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details: 'newest first' ordering, API key scoping, and the statement 'Read-only or local operation'. It also lists the fields returned, which helps the agent understand what to expect. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and each clause adds information: scope, ordering, returned fields, and safety. No filler or redundancy beyond the read-only note which aligns with annotations.

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 simple list operation with one parameter and good annotations, the description provides sufficient context: scope, ordering, and row contents. It lacks pagination details beyond the limit parameter, but that's not critical for a basic list. The absence of an output schema is compensated by listing the fields, so it's adequately 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single 'limit' parameter, with min/max and a note about server cap. The description does not add further parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('recent EDI transactions') and includes ordering and scope details ('newest first', 'scoped to the API key'). It distinguishes from sibling 'get_transaction' by indicating a list vs single 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 clearly indicates this is for listing recent transactions with an API key scope, implying its use for browsing transaction history. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_transaction, but the context is clear. No exclusions or conditional guidance is provided, so it's a 4.

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