Find transactions

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add one genuine behavioral fact — results are returned newest-first — but says nothing about the default result count, whether the 1–500 limit is paginated, what authentication/scope applies, or what the response contains. For a 10-parameter query tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin.

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 front-loaded sentence names the operation and ordering, then a second sentence enumerates filters. No filler, no redundancy, and the most important scoping facts come first.

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, no annotations, and 10 parameters at 0% coverage, the description should tell the agent more — notably the date string format, what minOutcome/limit mean, and whether results are truncated. It is adequate to start an invocation but not sufficient to call confidently without guessing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate — and it does map 8 of 10 parameters to meaning: 'date range' clarifies from/to as dates, 'merchant/payee/mcc' disambiguates three similar string/number fields, and the two '*-only' booleans are explained by name. It leaves 'limit' (bounds are in schema but no default/reset behavior) and 'minOutcome' entirely unexplained, which is the gap keeping this below 5.

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+resource ('filtered transaction lookup') plus the ordered semantics ('newest first'), and enumerates the filter axes, so an agent can tell this is a read/find tool. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like zen_review_expenses or zen_merchant_history, which overlap on transaction retrieval.

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 filter list implies when the tool is useful ('uncategorized-only', 'needs-review-only' hint at review workflows) but never states when to prefer it over zen_review_expenses or zen_merchant_history, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage must be inferred from the parameter names.

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