list_transactions

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. Explains visibility scope (client_id isolation) and default ordering ('recent transactions'), but omits rate limits, error behaviors, and side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 efficient sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with the core action, follows with scope constraints, then usage pattern. Every clause 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?

With 100% schema coverage and no output schema, description adequately covers the listing behavior, pagination implications, and scoping rules. Missing explicit return value description (since no output schema exists), but 'List card transactions' implies the return type sufficiently for invocation.

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 parameters are fully self-documenting. Description adds confirmation of optionality ('All filter parameters are optional') and connects the 'omit all' case to the default behavior, adding slight semantic value beyond the schema baseline.

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?

Opens with specific verb 'List' and resource 'card transactions', clearly distinguishing from sibling 'list_cards'. Adds scope qualification '(scoped to the server's client_id)' that clarifies ownership boundary.

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?

Provides clear context on visibility constraints ('Transactions from other agents...are not visible') and filter usage ('All filter parameters are optional — omit all to list recent transactions'). Lacks explicit naming of when to use vs siblings like get_card_details, but the scoping guidance effectively constrains usage.

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