List Bank Transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is clearly a safe read operation. The description adds no further behavioral traits beyond the listing action, such as pagination details or result ordering, which are left to the input schema.

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 concise, using two sentences in English and their Spanish translation. It front-loads the purpose and essential filter options, with every sentence providing value. There is no redundancy or unnecessary 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?

Given the tool has 8 optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main filtering functionality but omits crucial details like pagination (cursor/offset/limit) and result ordering. This could lead an agent to overlook pagination capabilities, making the description less complete for complex listing tasks.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 8 parameters, each with clear definitions. The description reiterates some filter parameters (account, date range, status, category) but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Pagination parameters (after, limit, offset) are not mentioned 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 ('bank transactions'), and specifies optional filters by account, date range, status, and category. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_bank_accounts or categorize_transaction by focusing on transactional listing with filtering.

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 mentions use cases ('reconciliation, expense matching, and cash flow analysis') which provides context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it, lacking exclusion criteria.

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