ck_list_transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only added behavior is 'Paginated', which is already implied by the limit/offset parameters in the schema; it omits default page size, total-count behavior, and result ordering.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded, zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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?

For a ten-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is too thin: it never describes the returned transaction shape, sort order, or whether pagination metadata is returned. Combined with no sibling routing, an agent is left to infer the important behavior from the schema 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 100%, so the schema itself documents all ten filters, defaults, and formats; the baseline is therefore 3. The description adds nothing beyond 'optional filters'—no clarification of how filters combine (AND vs OR) or how date/amount ranges are interpreted.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List transactions') plus scope ('with optional filters'), so an agent knows the operation immediately. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from close siblings like ck_get_recent_transactions or ck_query_sql, which also return transaction data.

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?

'with optional filters' hints at the use case but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as ck_get_recent_transactions (recent-only) or ck_query_sql (arbitrary queries). An agent must guess which transaction reader to pick.

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