get_transactions

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the useful ordering trait ('most recent first'). It does not disclose pagination or return shape, but for a read-only list tool the annotation covers the safety burden.

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?

A single compact sentence with zero filler words; the core action and ordering are stated clearly and immediately.

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-only list endpoint with two self-explanatory pagination parameters and high schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It doesn't describe the output structure, but 'list' plus the resource name sufficiently implies the return value.

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 schema covers both parameters (page, limit) with types, defaults, ranges, and descriptions at 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the schema carries the load.

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 ('List'), names the resource ('payment transactions'), and specifies ordering ('most recent first'). It is unambiguous on its own, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as get_usage_history or get_dashboard.

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 when-to-use guidance or alternatives are mentioned. An agent must infer appropriate usage purely from the tool name and sibling list.

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