export_transactions

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that it exports to a JSON file with a descriptive filename, which is useful context beyond annotations, but doesn't detail file location, permissions, or rate limits.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, clearly front-loaded with the core functionality. It's appropriately sized for the tool's purpose.

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 7 parameters with 0% schema coverage, an output schema exists, and annotations cover safety aspects, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations and behavioral details like file handling, making it adequate but with clear gaps for a tool with many undocumented inputs.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but only mentions 'descriptive filename' vaguely, which relates to the 'filename' parameter. It doesn't explain the purpose of other parameters like 'budget_id', 'account_id', 'category_id', 'since_date', 'type', or 'minimal', leaving significant gaps.

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 ('Export') and resource ('all transactions') with the output format ('JSON file with descriptive filename'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_transactions' by specifying export functionality, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_transactions' or 'compare_transactions'. The description mentions no prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage.

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