search_transactions_tool

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

There are no annotations to communicate side effects, read-only behavior, or access requirements. The description merely states what the search does and does not disclose whether it mutates data, requires authentication, or has rate limits.

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, focused sentence with no redundant information. It states the core functionality clearly and efficiently.

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 four parameters, the description leaves out important context such as how date filtering works, what the limit controls, and what the result set contains. It is minimal but not sufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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?

The schema provides no descriptions for the parameters, and the tool description does not explain the meaning of query, limit, start_date, or end_date. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description must compensate, but it entirely fails to do so.

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 clearly identifies the action (fuzzy search) and the resource (transactions), narrowing the scope to description and merchant name. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_transactions_tool, but the 'fuzzy search' wording provides enough distinction.

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?

No explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_transactions_tool. The use case is only implied by the phrase 'fuzzy search,' which is not enough to guide an agent effectively.

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