report__get_customer_transactions_by_revision

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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it discloses the pagination pattern (response carries last_revision/last_transaction_id for the next request), and it explicitly states MCP-server throttling (10 requests per 60 seconds) with a caching recommendation. This is valuable for the agent to avoid rate limits and manage state.

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 reasonably concise and well-structured: it starts with the purpose, then explains the continuation mechanism, followed by Args/Returns, ID sourcing, and throttling. Key information is front-loaded, though the throttle and caching note are at the end. No redundant fluff.

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 absence of an output schema, the description explains that the response contains a list of transactions and continuation markers (last_revision/last_transaction_id). It also covers throttling and caching. It lacks error-handling details or edge cases, but for a read-only incremental fetch with well-described parameters, it is fairly 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?

The description provides guidance on where to obtain customerId and organizationId by referencing other tools (customers__get_customer_info and organizations__get_organizations). While the schema already describes the fields (revision, lastTransactionId, pageSize), the ID sourcing tip adds practical value. However, the relationship between revision and lastTransactionId is not explained beyond the schema.

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 retrieves customer transactions incrementally by revision, which distinguishes it from the sibling report__get_customer_transactions_by_date. The verb 'получить' (get) and resource 'транзакции клиента' (customer transactions) are specific, and the incremental-by-revision method is unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling report__get_customer_transactions_by_date. It does not mention alternatives or conditions for choosing one over the other. The only usage-related info is where to obtain customerId and organizationId, which is parameter sourcing, not tool selection guidance.

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