ck_list_transactions

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

The annotations include readOnlyHint=true, which already signals that this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds the pagination behavior (a strategic trait) but does not disclose details like default pagination limits, maximum page size, or whether results are sorted (e.g., by date). While the description adds some value over annotations, it doesn't provide substantial behavioral context beyond what a read-only hint implies.

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 extremely concise, two short sentences, and puts the core function first. It avoids extraneous detail, but it is so brief that it misses opportunities to add clarifying context (e.g., filtering semantics). Still, it is well-structured and efficient.

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 10 parameters, all optional, and no output schema, the description is thin. It does not explain how filters interact, whether filtering is case-insensitive, what the default sort order is, or how pagination works (e.g., page size limits). Since annotations provide only a read-only hint, the description should carry more weight for usability, but it fails to address these key aspects.

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 has a basic description (e.g., 'Default 50', 'Partial account name match'). The description adds the concept of 'optional filters' and pagination, but it doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as how filters combine (AND logic) or that amount filters use absolute values. Given high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'List transactions with optional filters. Paginated.', which identifies the primary function (listing transactions) and mentions pagination. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like ck_get_recent_transactions, which likely also lists transactions. The description is functional but lacks specificity about scope (e.g., whether it returns all transactions or recent ones).

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like ck_get_recent_transactions, ck_get_spending_by_category, and ck_query_sql, an agent would benefit from knowing that this tool is for filtered, paginated listing as opposed to recent-only or aggregated views. The description implies it is the general listing tool but does not state exclusions or alternatives.

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