Find Transactions

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Find transactions within a specific time range with optional filters'. It does not state that the operation is read-only, how results are ordered or paginated, whether filters are applied as AND/OR, or what happens when the time range is invalid. This leaves the agent to infer basic behavior.

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?

The description is a single short sentence with no fluff, front-loading the core purpose (finding transactions) and the key scoping constraint (time range). It could add more useful detail without becoming verbose, but as written it is concise and easy to parse.

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?

Despite having 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description does not cover return value structure, pagination defaults, filter semantics, ordering, or how this tool relates to 'list_transactions'. An agent would need to inspect the schema and make guesses about behavior beyond simple parameter values.

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 schema already documents every parameter. The description adds only the generic phrase 'optional filters' without naming them, so it provides marginal value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because no parameter meaning is missing.

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 clearly states the action ('Find') and resource ('transactions'), and adds a scoping detail (time range) plus the existence of optional filters. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the closely named sibling 'list_transactions' or enumerate which filters are available, so it falls short of full 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?

The description implies this tool is for querying transactions within a time range, which provides some usage context. But it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'list_transactions', no exclusion criteria, and no prerequisites or limitations beyond what the schema provides.

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