Get an account’s transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds behavior those annotations cannot express: the result set is uncapped, and split transactions are returned as parent + legs with `isParent`/`isChild`, so naive summing double-counts. That return-shape warning is exactly the kind of context beyond structured fields.

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, zero waste: the scope and routing rule come first, the split-accounting caveat second. 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 no output schema, the description still discloses the one return-shape detail an agent would otherwise get wrong (parent/child split rows). Combined with the exhaustive-read scoping, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it correctly.

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% and the schema documents all three required parameters with formats and inclusivity; the description adds no parameter-level syntax or meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 applies 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), resource (transactions), and scope (one account, between two dates, no result cap), and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling `search_transactions`. An agent can distinguish it from every other sibling without opening 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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule ('exhaustive per-account read, e.g. for reconciling') and names the alternative plus the condition that selects it ('use search_transactions for anything cross-account or filtered'). Nothing is left to inference.

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