list_transactions

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real behavioral trait — results are paginated — which is more than the schema says. However, it omits ordering, default page size, and crucially what includeDeleted does, which matters for a 7-parameter read tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single tight sentence with the filtering axes first and pagination last. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

Seven optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema — the description should do more. It leaves unlimited/offset defaults, result ordering, and the meaning of includeDeleted undocumented, so an agent cannot confidently construct a full query from the text alone.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It references dates, account, and category (4 of 7 parameters) but says nothing about limit, offset, or includeDeleted, and adds no semantics beyond the parameter names themselves (the date format is already in the schema pattern).

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 names a specific verb (find transactions) plus the filter axes (dates, account, category) and states the result is paginated, which clearly separates it from mutation siblings like create_transaction or delete_transaction. It doesn't explicitly contrast with read siblings such as suggest_transactions or summarize_spending, so it stops short of 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?

Usage is implied by the filter list — an agent can infer 'use this to search transactions' — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to alternatives. For example, nothing says to use summarize_spending for aggregates or suggest_transactions for candidate matches.

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