List Transactions

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: a 50-row cap, that scope defaults to all completed statements, and that responses include the evaluated scope (document count and covered date range) plus a content_hash per row for citation. This goes beyond the annotations to describe response structure and limitations.

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 compact given the tool's complexity, with five sentences that each add value: definition, core action, scope behavior, response metadata, and an alternative tool pointer. It is front-loaded with purpose and avoids repeating schema details. Slightly dense but well-organized and efficient.

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 tool with no output schema, the description partially compensates by stating the 50-row cap, the response's scope metadata, and the content_hash citation feature. It does not enumerate all return fields or pagination behavior, but the schema covers input thoroughly, and the description gives enough for an agent to call it correctly and interpret results at a high level.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter has a description. The tool description adds context about scope defaults and the return format, but it does not explain individual parameter semantics beyond the schema. It reinforces that 'scope' narrows to accounts/products and date ranges, but the schema already conveys this. 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 specific verb ('Return'), a clear resource ('a filtered list of transactions'), and a scope ('across your converted statements'). It defines what a transaction is (one line on a statement) and differentiates itself from get_credits by naming the sibling explicitly. The purpose is unmistakable and distinct from siblings like list_statements or list_transfers.

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 explicitly directs the agent to use get_credits for credit/quota questions, and clarifies that scope defaults to all completed statements with optional narrowing. It does not exhaustively cover all sibling distinctions (e.g., list_transfers), but the guidance is clear and actionable for the most common alternative.

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