Search transactions

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that results include stable IDs, full tag data, editability, and a revision hash, which hints at read-only behavior and optimistic concurrency support. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, default limits, filtering semantics, or any side effects. The provided context is minimal and does not fully characterize the tool's behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose ('Search ezBookkeeping transactions') and then adds a concise, valuable detail about result contents. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 16 parameters and no output schema, this description is severely under-specified. It mentions only a few result fields and says nothing about pagination, default behavior, filtering logic, or response structure. For a complex search tool, this is far from a complete description and leaves the agent guessing about essential usage details.

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 only 13% (only start_time and end_time have descriptions), so the tool description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It does not mention any of the 16 parameters, their filtering functions, or how they interact. The description adds no value beyond the schema's bare field names, leaving most parameters semantically opaque.

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 tool's function with a specific verb and resource ('Search ezBookkeeping transactions'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by indicating it returns multiple transactions with stable IDs and revision hashes, unlike get_transaction which fetches a single transaction. The addition of result specifics further clarifies its purpose.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of using this before updating a transaction (despite the revision hash hint), nor any exclusions like 'use get_transaction for a single known ID'. The description implies a general search use case but does not provide comparative context with siblings.

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