getTransactionsByMonth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add a genuinely useful behavioral trait by stating that pending transactions are excluded, which is not inferable from the tool name or input schema. It does not cover every possible behavioral aspect, but for a read-only retrieval tool this is reasonably transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every phrase adds value: the action, the resource, the month scope, and the pending-transaction exclusion.

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 the output schema exists and all parameters are documented, the description covers the main invocation context: what is returned and the key exclusion. It could be more complete by stating how this tool relates to date-range siblings, but that is a gap in usage guidance rather than a fatal omission.

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%, so the parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond the general 'specified month' phrasing, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('transactions') with a clear scope ('for a specified month') and a meaningful exclusion ('excluding any pending transactions'). It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like getTransactionsByAccount or getTransactions, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 implies when to use the tool: when a month-scoped transaction list is needed. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling alternative (e.g. getTransactions, getTransactionsByAccount, getTransactionsByCategory) might be more appropriate for other query shapes.

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