List transactions

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

The readOnlyHint annotation covers the read-only nature, and the description adds pagination and filtering behavior. However, the description says 'current workspace' while the schema includes a workspace_id parameter, potentially misleading agents about the ability to override the workspace.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then specifies pagination and optional filtering. However, it omits a parameter (workspace_id) that is present in the schema, slightly reducing completeness.

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?

The description is incomplete for a tool with four parameters, especially since workspace_id is not mentioned and the description implies a fixed scope ('current workspace'). The tool's behavior around workspace selection is under-specified, and no guidance on output or when to use alternatives is provided.

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 each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description mentions limit, offset, and benefit_id but adds no new semantic details beyond the schema; it also omits workspace_id entirely.

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 operation ('List transactions') and the resource ('for the current workspace'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_accounts or list_benefits. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or edge cases, so it is not a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus other listing tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description simply states what it does without providing contextual selection rules.

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