List transactions

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

Annotations already establish the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, yet the description adds substantial behavior: 1,000-per-page paging, that ranges up to a year cost a single request, signed amounts in compact rows, per-currency totals, and a prompt-injection warning about third-party text. This is exactly the added context the annotations cannot 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then defaults, cost/paging, amount sign convention, return totals, and a safety note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy; density is high but justified for a 13-parameter tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description steps up to explain returns (compact vs full rows, signed amounts, per-currency in/out totals) and paging semantics. Combined with full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call 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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter definitions carry most of the load, making 3 the baseline. The description still adds interpretation the schema lacks — that compact amounts are signed (negative = out), that the query returns per-currency totals, and that long ranges page automatically — which meaningfully informs parameter behavior.

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?

States a specific verb (Lists) plus resource (transactions/feed items), scope (main account or a space), and ordering (newest first), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from close siblings like list_settled_transactions, get_feed_changes_since, or export_transactions_csv, which prevents a 5.

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?

Gives useful context about defaults (last 30 days) and the automatic paging threshold, which implies when it's appropriate. But it never says when to prefer this over list_settled_transactions, get_feed_changes_since, or export_transactions_csv, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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