findTransactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that the tool searches transactions with filters, which suggests a read operation, but it does not state the output format, pagination behavior, default result size, or what an empty result looks like. There is no contradiction with annotations because none exist.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core action and summarizes the main filter categories without wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with this many optional parameters.

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?

Although the description covers the tool's high-level purpose, it is incomplete for a read tool with 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. It omits the return structure, default behavior when no filters are provided, and how this tool relates to the many sibling transaction-list tools. An agent would need additional context to use it with full confidence.

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 9 parameters. The description groups them into categories like 'amount range' and 'dates,' which helps map to minAmount/maxAmount and startDate/endDate, but it adds no deeper semantics such as date inclusivity or default pagination values. 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 ('Search') and resource ('transactions') and enumerates the filter dimensions (status, vendor, merchant, amount range, dates, pagination). This identifies the tool's main function, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling filtered transaction tools like failedTransactions or pendingTransactions.

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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given siblings like findTransactionById, failedTransactions, pendingTransactions, and largeTransactions, the description should clarify that this is the general filtered-search option, not the specialized or ID-based variant. The absence leaves the agent to infer the tool's role.

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