List scheduled 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 adds the meaningful traits that filters are combinable (AND semantics) and that results are ordered soonest-first, but says nothing about pagination totals or result volume beyond what limit/offset already imply.

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 core statement is front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by a compact example block. Each example carries a concrete parameter mapping rather than filler, though four examples is slightly more than strictly needed for nine self-documented parameters.

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 an output schema present, annotations covering safety, and 100% schema coverage on all nine params, the description only needs to add the non-obvious traits — it does that via filter combinability and render order. Minor gaps remain around result volume/pagination behavior and cross-tool sequencing beyond the payee hint.

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 limit, offset, payee_id, frequency, amounts, account, category and upcoming_days are all already documented in the schema. The description's examples largely restate those semantics; the one genuine addition is the workflow hint that payee_id requires resolving the payee first (presumably via find_payee). That justifies the baseline 3 but not more.

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 scheduled transactions') plus a meaningful implicit sort ('soonest first'), which separates it from the plural list_transactions and the singular get_scheduled_transaction. It does not explicitly name a sibling or state exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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 example-query block effectively maps natural-language intents to concrete parameter choices (frequency="monthly", upcoming_days=7, min_amount=100), giving clear context for when each filter applies. It omits when not to use this tool or which sibling to prefer for single-record or posted-transaction lookups.

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