Get Transactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It correctly implies a read operation ('Gets'), but does not disclose response structure, pagination behavior, or the default limit of 100 transactions (though the schema includes a limit parameter). No hidden behaviors are suggested.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and key filters. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous words, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points.

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 adequately covers the main filters but omits mention of the optional budgetId defaulting to an environment variable and does not explicitly state the tool is read-only. Given the absence of output schema and annotations, a slightly more complete description would be beneficial.

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 description adds limited value beyond summarizing filter capabilities (date range, account, category, payee, approval status). It does not improve on schema details significantly.

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 tool 'Gets transactions from a budget' and lists optional filters, distinguishing it from creation/deletion siblings. However, it does not distinguish from the more specific sibling 'ynab_get_unapproved_transactions', which could cause ambiguity.

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 optional filters but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'ynab_get_unapproved_transactions' or other transaction tools. No explicit when-not or alternative suggestions are provided.

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