get_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that transactions are cached (implying potential staleness) and that amounts are signed. However, it lacks details on data freshness, pagination behavior, or error conditions, which would be expected for a query tool.

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, well-structured paragraph with a clear opening sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds specific value without redundancy. It uses line breaks effectively to separate logical sections, making it easy to scan.

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 10 parameters and no annotations, the description covers essential user-facing filtering but misses details on search, account_id, limit, and include_pending. The caching behavior is mentioned but not elaborated. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the overview remains incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantics of dates (YYYY-MM-DD), amounts (signed), category filtering, and include_transfers. It provides example usage (max_amount=0 for spending). However, it omits explanations for search, account_id, limit, and include_pending, leaving a gap.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource ('Query cached transactions'), immediately clarifying the tool's core function. It details filtering capabilities (dates, amounts, category, transfers) that distinguish it from sibling tools like list_transfers or account_balances.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use parameters such as max_amount/min_amount for spending/income filtering, and include_transfers to exclude internal transfers. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, the usage context is well-explained.

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