list_operations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully states that amounts are parsed to floats, negative amounts represent expenses, and large result sets can be constrained with a limit. This goes beyond the schema by clarifying parsed data semantics and response-size behavior, though it does not mention ordering or error handling.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, the comma-separated output fields are compact, and the performance tip about limit earns its place. Every sentence adds useful information.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it lists the returned fields, explains filter behavior, and flags response-size concerns. It does not describe ordering, error behavior, or exact filter match semantics, but the schema covers formats and defaults, and the core invocation is clear.

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 fully documents every parameter. The description adds marginal context about signed amounts and filter combinability, but it mostly restates what the parameter descriptions already convey. 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Parse an mBank CSV operations export and return the operation rows'. It enumerates the exact fields returned (date, description, account, category, signed amount, currency), which distinguishes it from the sibling tools that read the header or summarize operations.

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 some usage context: filters are optional and combinable, and a limit is recommended for large statements. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with read_statement_header or summarize_operations, so the when-to-use vs alternative guidance is only implied by the function name and return rows.

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