getTransactionsByAccount

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add a useful non-obvious behavior by stating that pending transactions are excluded, and 'Returns' implies a read-only operation. However, it omits any context about authentication, rate limits, possible pagination, or the fact that optional filters can narrow the result set.

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 one concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core result ('Returns all transactions for a specified account') and then appends the key behavioral caveat ('excluding any pending transactions').

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?

The output schema covers return values and the input schema covers parameters, so the description need not repeat those. However, given the large family of transaction-related siblings, the description would be more complete if it mentioned why getTransactionsByAccount should be preferred over getTransactions or getTransactionsByCategory. As written, it is minimally viable but leaves the routing decision to the agent.

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 100%, and the schema already thoroughly documents plan_id, account_id, type, since_date, until_date, and last_knowledge_of_server, including formats, defaults, and allowed enum values. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: 'Returns all transactions for a specified account'. It also specifies a meaningful scope restriction, 'excluding any pending transactions', and the 'specified account' clause distinguishes it from sibling transaction getters like getTransactionsByCategory, getTransactionsByPayee, and getTransactionsByMonth.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over the closely related getTransactions, getTransactionsByCategory, getTransactionsByPayee, or getTransactionsByMonth. It tells the agent what the tool does, but not when it is the right alternative, so an agent must infer selection criteria from the name alone.

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