vaultix_list_transactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention pagination, sorting, default ordering, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format looks like. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., array of objects with fields), pagination behavior, or how the unified view differs from individual list tools. Given the context of multiple sibling list tools, more guidance would help an agent use this correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions and enums. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how 'type' and 'source' differ or providing usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all transactions'), with a helpful clarification about what 'transactions' means ('unified view of charges, refunds, payouts'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'vaultix_list_charges' or 'vaultix_get_transactions_summary', but the unified view aspect provides some implicit 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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'vaultix_list_charges', 'vaultix_list_refunds', or 'vaultix_get_transactions_summary'. The description mentions a 'unified view', but doesn't explain when this is preferable over the more specific list tools or what the summary tool offers differently.

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