getTransactionsByPayee

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that pending transactions are excluded, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it doesn't mention other behaviors like default date range (one year ago), pagination, or that the result may be empty. The schema provides some parameter details, but the description doesn't add much beyond the pending exclusion.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loads the core purpose. It includes the key exclusion (pending transactions) without unnecessary detail. It could be slightly more structured, but it's efficient and clear.

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 tool has an output schema and 100% schema coverage, so return values and parameters are documented. The description is adequate for a filtered-list tool, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus siblings and doesn't mention default behaviors like the one-year date default. Given the complexity (6 params, output schema), a bit more context would help, but it's not critically incomplete.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool returns all transactions for a specified payee and excludes pending transactions. It identifies the resource (transactions) and the filter (payee), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like getTransactionsByAccount and getTransactionsByCategory. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it doesn't fully differentiate itself.

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 usage context: use this when you need transactions filtered by payee, and it notes the exclusion of pending transactions. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like getTransactions or getTransactionsByAccount, but the payee-specific scope is clear from the name and description. No explicit exclusions or alternative routing is provided.

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