Search transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: amounts are unsigned minor units, 'type' gives direction (DEBIT = money out), and each item carries its effective category with resolved label. This goes beyond the 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose and core features, key data semantics, and an alternative. No repetition of schema details or fluff, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool has 18 parameters and no output schema, so the description must carry a fair burden. It covers the searchable resource, pagination, and key semantic quirks (unsigned amounts, effective category). Minor gaps remain (e.g., default sort/filter behaviors are left to the schema), but the description is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 high (89%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the unsigned minor units convention and the effective category semantics, which map to relevant parameters (minAmountMinor, maxAmountMinor, type, effectiveCategoryIds). This provides a small but useful increment above 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 opens with 'Search the user's bank transactions with filters and pagination', a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools. It also explicitly names aggregate_transactions as the alternative for totals, reinforcing differentiation.

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 explicitly states when to prefer an alternative: 'For totals over many transactions prefer aggregate_transactions.' This provides a clear when-not-to-use and points to the correct sibling, satisfying the highest bar for usage guidance.

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