invoice_processing__list_finance_account_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 meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it discloses MCP-server throttling (10 requests per 60 seconds, distinct from the iikoCloud limit) and explicitly instructs caching results in the dialog. This is useful operational information that the annotations do not convey.

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 three short sentences, each earning its place: one states the purpose, one gives a parameter source, and one gives an actionable throttling/caching note. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 tool with four required parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description omits critical information: there is no guidance on finding accountId, no detail on expected response shape, and no mention of date-range constraints or pagination. The throttling and organizationId hints help, but the overall picture is incomplete for an agent to call the tool confidently.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It only explains where to get organizationId; it does not clarify how to obtain accountId or provide any meaning for the from/to date parameters beyond their schema names. This is insufficient given the low schema coverage.

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 'Проводки по счету за период' (account transactions for the period), clearly identifying a read/list operation scoped to a finance account and date range. It also distinguishes itself from adjacent invoice_processing siblings by mentioning 'по счету' (by account), though it does not explicitly contrast with similar transaction-list tools like list_finance_document_transactions.

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 provides practical guidance for obtaining organizationId and caching due to throttling, but it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool versus alternatives such as list_finance_document_transactions or finance service listers. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions.

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