bank_transaction_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that results are scoped to the server-bound AbraFlexi company, but it does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only, discuss missing IDs, or describe pagination behavior. The 'Get' verb and output schema partially compensate.

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 two compact sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the scope clarifier earns its place by narrowing the data set.

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 simple read operation with no required parameters, a detailed output schema, and fully described parameters, the description is largely sufficient. It names the source and scope and points to server_info; only default behavior when no IDs are supplied remains implicit.

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%, with clear descriptions for ids, limit, and detail. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level nuance, so the baseline score is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get bank transactions (banka) from AbraFlexi.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like bank_transaction_create and other evidence_get tools by naming the exact resource.

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 scope note about transactions belonging to the bound AbraFlexi company adds context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as evidence_get, nor are any exclusions stated. Usage must be inferred from the verb and resource.

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