get_transactions_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and covers meaningful traits: data source (local cache vs live API), a required prerequisite for Plaid, and the sign convention 'Positive amounts = spend.' It does not describe pagination or output ordering, but the output schema exists to cover return structure.

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?

Four short sentences with no filler: the main action is front-loaded, then provider behavior, prerequisite, and sign convention each earn their place.

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 output schema exists and the required parameters are simple, the description is reasonably complete: it covers date format, provider-specific data freshness, and the sync prerequisite. It could be more complete by naming search_transactions_tool as the alternative for advanced filtering, but this is not a blocking gap.

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 0%, and the description only compensates for the date format and amount sign interpretation. The remaining optional filters (limit, category, merchant, account_id) are left to their self-explanatory names and schema defaults, so the compensation is partial.

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 and resource: 'Query transactions between two dates,' and specifies the date format. It is clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling search_transactions_tool or spending_summary_tool.

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?

It gives provider-specific usage context: for Plaid, 'run sync_transactions first' because it reads the local cache, while Teller fetches live. However, it never states when to choose this tool over sibling alternatives or mentions exclusions.

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