list_transactions

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds critical behavioral details: client-side application of transactionNo/voucherNo filters, silent ignoring of unbound params, and scanning up to 5000 records. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentences containing all essential information with no fluff. The critical constraint about client-side scanning is front-loaded.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral nuances (client-side filtering, scanning limit) and parameter semantics through the schema. The verbose parameter's effect is described in the schema. Missing explicit mention of return structure or pagination behavior is a minor 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 8 parameters. The tool description adds context about client-side processing for transactionNo, voucherNo, minEntryDate, maxEntryDate, and isVoided, which is not evident from parameter descriptions alone.

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 states the tool lists booked transactions with a specific verb and resource. It additionally notes client-side filtering behavior for transactionNo/voucherNo. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like list_daybook_transactions, leaving some ambiguity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_daybook_transactions or search tools. The client-side scanning limit and date bounding hint is useful but does not constitute clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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