bank_get_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only settled/posted transactions are returned, explains the exclusive/inclusive date boundaries, and notes the historical access window when both dates are omitted. This is substantial behavioral context beyond a naive 'get transactions' statement, though it doesn't cover pagination or response structure.

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: first identifies the tool's core function, second clarifies date format, third explains boundary semantics and omission behavior. Every sentence adds value, no fluff, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential operational details: settled transactions, date range rules, and fallback when dates are omitted. It doesn't describe the return shape (e.g., transaction object fields), but the core use cases are sufficiently addressed for a simple fetch 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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning by clarifying that 'start' is exclusive, 'end' is inclusive, and omitting both returns all accessible transactions. This goes beyond the schema's generic ISO 8601 descriptions, directly aiding parameter usage.

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 gets settled transactions for one bank account by Akahu account ID, with optional date range. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from siblings like bank_get_balance (balance) and list_accounts (account listing).

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?

Provides clear context on when to use: fetching settled transactions for a specific account, with date range semantics explicitly defined (exclusive start, inclusive end). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling differentiation is implied by the tool's purpose, so a small gap remains.

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