List transactions

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read. Beyond that the description adds nothing behavioral: no pagination, no maximum date-range limit, no ordering, and no note on how the required timestamp window affects results. For a date-bounded feed query those traits matter.

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?

Two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the second sentence is largely redundant with the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a timestamp-windowed transaction feed with four required params, the description omits window limits and pagination behavior, leaving it only minimally 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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (accountUid, categoryUid, min/maxTransactionTimestamp) are already documented in the schema. The description's category guidance duplicates the schema's own categoryUid note rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get transaction feed items for an account category'), which is clear enough to act on. It does not differentiate from any sibling (e.g., feed_item_get), but there is no direct competing list tool, so the gap is minor.

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 only guidance is 'Use the default category UID for main account transactions,' which is a parameter hint rather than a when-to-use rule. There is no indication of when this tool should be chosen over alternatives like feed_item_get, nor any prerequisite or exclusion.

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