tables_db_list_transactions

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. 'List transactions' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, whether results are paginated, or what format the output takes. For a tool that presumably returns potentially sensitive transaction data, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. For a tool that lists transactions across databases, the description should address scope (all databases vs specific ones), output format, potential limitations, or security considerations. The current description leaves too many contextual questions unanswered for effective tool selection and invocation.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'queries' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 action ('List') and resource ('transactions across all databases'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from other list operations (like list_tables, list_rows) by specifying it's for transactions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'tables_db_get_transaction' which retrieves a single transaction, so it's not fully sibling-distinctive.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use 'tables_db_get_transaction' for single transactions, or how this differs from other list operations. There's no context about prerequisites, filtering capabilities, or typical use cases.

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