List transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety bar is low, and the description adds real context beyond them: default ordering ('newest first'), USD amounts with sign semantics ('negative takes from the balance'), and the post-transaction balance. It omits pagination behavior (limit/offset interaction), which is the main remaining gap.

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, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the field-level detail. The second sentence is dense but every clause (amount sign, balance-after, filter mapping) carries information; a small amount of trimming is possible but nothing is padding.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the returned record shape and the meaning of its numeric fields. For a read-only, zero-required-parameter list tool, that plus the schema on filters is sufficient for correct 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?

With 57% schema coverage, the description usefully explains what the documented params mean in domain terms — 'narrow by day' for the date pair, 'the table's transaction types' for type, and 'works like its search box' for search. sort, limit and offset get no prose, but their enums, defaults and bounds are self-explanatory in the schema.

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 ('Every charge, payment and refund on the Pirate Ship balance') and anchors it to a known surface ('The Reports, Transaction History table'). The enumerated record kinds (label purchase, payment, refund, carrier adjustment) distinguish it from narrower siblings like list_refunds or list_receipts without needing the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the content description — an agent can infer this is the general ledger view rather than the typed lists (list_refunds, list_carrier_adjustments) — but no sibling is named and no when-not condition is given. Adequate but leaves the routing decision to inference.

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