list_account_transactions

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and open world. The description adds that it returns all transaction types affecting the account, but does not clarify pagination, limits, or default ordering. openWorldHint suggests incomplete results, but the description doesn't address this.

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?

Two sentences, direct and to the point. No fluff, front-loaded with the core action.

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 parameter count and lack of output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose and return type effectively. Could mention date range or sorting capabilities, but schema already covers those.

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 parameters are well-documented structurally. The description does not add additional semantic details about parameters beyond what is in the schema.

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 it lists transactions for a specific account, specifies the types (journals, invoices, bills, etc.), and mentions a use case (reconciliation and analysis). It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on specific transaction types.

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 a use case ('reconciliation and analysis') but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., list_bills, list_invoices) or when not to use it. No alternatives mentioned.

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