list_transactions

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

Annotations already provide excellent behavioral coverage (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true). The description adds value by specifying 'for a budget' (scope constraint) and 'optional filtering' (capability context), which aren't covered by annotations. No contradictions with annotations - 'List' aligns with readOnlyHint=true.

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 zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('List transactions for a budget') followed by key capability ('with optional filtering'). Every element serves a purpose in conveying essential information.

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 the presence of comprehensive annotations (covering safety, idempotency, and open-world behavior) and an output schema (which handles return values), the description provides adequate context. It covers the core purpose and filtering capability. For a read-only list operation with good structural support, this is reasonably complete though could benefit from more parameter guidance.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries full burden for parameter meaning. It mentions 'optional filtering' which hints at parameters like account_id, category_id, since_date, and type, but doesn't explain what these filters do or their relationships. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond what's implied by the tool name.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('transactions for a budget'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_transaction' (singular) and 'export_transactions' (export vs list), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'compare_transactions' which might also involve listing. The description is specific but could be more precise about scope.

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 mentions 'optional filtering' which implies usage context, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_transaction' (for single transaction) or 'export_transactions' (for data export). There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings.

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