Transactions List Transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — nothing about default pagination (limit=100, offset=0), the three output modes (summary/full/raw), or how results are scoped. Although the bar is lowered by the annotations, the description contributes zero additional 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 words is under-specification, not conciseness, for a tool with 6 parameters and a 26-field nested filter object. Like the 'Process' calibration case, this is a bare phrase that happens to be a valid sentence rather than a deliberately pruned description. There is nothing structured or front-loaded because there is essentially no content.

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?

This is a complex tool — no output schema, a rich nested filter input, three output modes, and a crowded sibling group of six transactions tools. A two-word description is completely inadequate: it explains nothing about what the filters do, what summary/full/raw return, how pagination works, or how this differs from transactions_get_transaction. Even with annotations covering safety, the description fails almost every completeness requirement.

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 only 33% (only fields and output_mode have descriptions; sort, limit, offset, and the deeply nested 26-property filters object lack them). Since coverage is below 50%, the description should compensate, but it says nothing about any parameter. The schema's enums and defaults partially self-document sort/limit/offset, and the filter property names are descriptive, but the description itself adds no meaning.

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?

The description states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('transactions'), so an agent understands this is a query/read operation returning multiple transactions. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like transactions_get_transaction or transactions_get_transaction_splits — the differentiation is carried entirely by the tool name, not the description. Clear but minimal, with no sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no usage guidance whatsoever. The description 'List transactions.' contains no conditions, no exclusions, and no mention of when to prefer this over the single-transaction getter (transactions_get_transaction) or the attachments lister (transactions_list_transaction_attachments). An agent gets zero help selecting among the six transactions_* siblings.

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