get_transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds critical behavioral details: pagination behavior (limit, has_more, offset), default exclusions (pending, split-parents, group-children), and that include_* flags can override. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences: first lists filter options, second explains pagination and default exclusions. Efficient, front-loaded, no wasted words.

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 retrieval tool with 20 parameters and no output schema, the description covers pagination, default filters, and override flags. It could mention the response format (e.g., array of transaction objects) but is otherwise complete.

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 85%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description summarizes filter types (e.g., 'date range, account, category, tag') but does not add meaningful details beyond what the schema descriptions provide, e.g., no explanation of the 'status' enum values.

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 'Retrieve transactions' and enumerates numerous filtering dimensions (date, account, category, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings like get_single_transaction or create_transactions.

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 description explains optional filters, default limit, and that pending/split-group exclusions apply by default. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., get_single_transaction) but provides enough context for when to use this tool.

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