getTransactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that pending transactions are excluded, which is a behavioral trait not visible in the schema. However, it does not mention other behaviors such as pagination, ordering, or that it returns transactions across all accounts (as opposed to a specific account). This is minimal but non-zero transparency.

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, short sentence that immediately states the purpose and the key exclusion. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. Every part earns its place, making it an excellent example of conciseness.

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 an output schema present and detailed parameter descriptions, the description only needs to clarify scope and usage context. It mentions the exclusion of pending transactions but does not clarify that this returns all transactions for a plan across all accounts, which is important given the existence of filtered sibling tools. This makes it incomplete for an agent to decide when to call it. It's adequate but not comprehensive.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the description does not need to explain parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information; it only mentions a behavior (excluding pending) that isn't a parameter. Thus, it provides no added value for parameter understanding, and the baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 states a clear action and resource: 'Returns plan transactions.' It adds a specific exclusion ('excluding any pending transactions') which adds precision. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like getTransactionsByAccount or getTransactionsByCategory, which also return transactions but with filters. An agent could infer this is the unfiltered plan-level endpoint, but the description doesn't make that explicit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools that filter by account, category, payee, or month. The description does not mention alternatives or conditions for selecting this over others. An agent would need external knowledge to decide which transaction endpoint to call.

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