List transactions

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context: 'Amount is in currency units (negative = expense)' and lists returned fields, going beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 with four sentences, each carrying essential information. No unnecessary words; structured with a summary line followed by filter and return field details.

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?

With 8 parameters, full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema (context: true), the description adds complete context about filters, pagination, and return fields. It fully equips the agent.

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%, but the description adds critical meaning: mutual exclusivity of account_id and category_id, date format for since_date, and amount semantics. This significantly enhances understanding beyond schema descriptions.

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 resource (transactions of a budget) and verb (list), with specific details on filters and pagination. It distinguishes from siblings like ynab_create_transaction and ynab_update_transaction.

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 explicit guidance on filter constraints: 'Filter by account OR by category (not both), by date (since_date) and by type (uncategorized / unapproved).' It does not exclude alternatives but clearly explains when to use each filter.

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