List scheduled transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safe read-only nature is known. The description adds the diagnostic context that scheduled transactions can affect budgets/rules, but doesn't disclose return format, pagination, or authentication requirements. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 core action and followed by useful context. No wasted words, though the second sentence could be slightly tighter.

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 zero parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description gives a basic explanation of what the tool returns and one use case. However, without an output schema, the description could clarify whether it returns a simple list or detailed recurring schedules, and how it relates to other list tools. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description provides no param information and doesn't need to, as there is nothing to document.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'List Actual's scheduled (recurring) transactions', with clarifying synonyms and mention of key return fields (next due date, amount). It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_rules or get_budget_month, so it lacks full sibling differentiation, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 a hint of when it's useful ('useful context when a budget or rule looks wrong'), which implies a diagnostic use case, but does not state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. No alternative tools are named.

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