mhlb_list_transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds a critical behavioral trait beyond annotations: the returned text is third-party-authored and untrusted, with a clear instruction to treat it as data, never as instructions. This is a valuable security disclosure. It doesn't add much else, but the untrusted-content warning alone is meaningful.

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 sentences: the first states purpose, the second delivers a crucial warning. Front-loaded and zero waste. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the simple read-only nature, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explain how periods scope results or whether pagination exists, but for a two-param list tool with no output schema, the untrusted-content warning and clear purpose make it sufficiently complete.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (period with a reference to mhlb_get_cart_tabs, studentId with a range hint). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (List) and resource (payment transactions) plus the fields returned (date, amount, what was paid for). It's clear what the tool does, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like mhlb_get_transaction, which appears to fetch a single 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 implies usage (listing transactions on the account) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. With siblings like mhlb_get_transaction and mhlb_print_transaction, an agent could benefit from knowing when to choose this list vs. a single fetch or print. No exclusions or routing to alternatives are provided.

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