retryTransactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Retrieve' implies a safe read operation, and the core selection criterion is stated. However, it does not clarify whether the list includes only currently retried/failed transactions or all transactions with a retry count above one, nor does it describe ordering or return behavior.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The functional statement is front-loaded, followed by a concise use-case note. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple paginated list tool, the description is mostly complete: it names the resource, the filter, and a practical use case. The pagination parameters are covered by the schema. A minor gap is the lack of detail on exactly what 'retried more than once' means operationally and what fields are returned.

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 page and limit are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about these parameters, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve transactions that have been retried more than once.' The unique filter ('retried more than once') differentiates it from siblings like failedTransactions and pendingTransactions, but it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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 phrase 'Useful for identifying shaky payment flows' gives a clear use case, implying when this tool would be appropriate. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from sibling tools such as failedTransactions or findTransactions.

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