get_bank_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Lister' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it mention pagination, ordering, default limits, or error behavior. The 'filtres de date' mention duplicates the sqlfilters parameter description, adding no unique behavioral context.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It is appropriately sized with zero wasted words, and the key modifier (date filters) is placed upfront.

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 no output schema, the description should clarify what is returned (e.g., a list of transaction objects) but does not. It also omits usage context such as the required account_id or behavior when no transactions are found. Given the low complexity, a brief note on return structure or impact of the limit parameter would have made it complete.

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%, with clear descriptions for limit, account_id, and sqlfilters. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond indicating the presence of date filters, which is already captured in the sqlfilters parameter description. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb 'Lister' (list) with a clear resource 'transactions d'un compte bancaire' (transactions of a bank account), and mentions a key feature (date filters). It distinguishes from siblings like add_bank_transaction and get_bank_reconciliation by focusing on listing, making it clear when this tool is appropriate.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_bank_reconciliation or list_bank_accounts. It only states what it does, without exclusions, prerequisites, or mention of other related tools.

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