Search transactions

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the description's job is to add beyond that. It does: newest-first ordering, the limit cap (default 100, max 1000), and what `truncated` means. It stops short of describing rate limits or search-cost characteristics, hence a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with filter scope, then semantics, then result/paging behavior, closing with the sibling differentiation. Every sentence adds operational information; nothing is filler.

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 14 optional parameters and no output schema, the description carries ordering, truncation, paging, and unit conventions — exactly the gaps the schema cannot cover. All optional params are documented in the schema, and the description covers the behavior an agent needs to page and interpret results 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%, so the 3 baseline is met by the schema alone; the description adds genuine meaning on top, notably that amounts are integer cents and negative signifies an outflow. It also clarifies the limit/offset interaction. It does not explain the cleared vs reconciled distinction, which is the one remaining param-level ambiguity.

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 (search) and resource (transactions) plus the full scope of filterable dimensions, and explicitly contrasts itself with the per-account listing sibling: it answers "where else does this payee appear?" which the per-account tool cannot. An agent can distinguish it from get_transactions without opening either 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?

Names a concrete use case (payee cleanup) and the alternative it displaces (per-account listing), and gives an explicit paging rule: use `offset` or narrow filters when `truncated` is true rather than assuming full coverage. When-to-use and how-to-continue are both spelled out.

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