Get Transactions

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds only that the result is a list, but it does not disclose behavioral details such as date-range limits, default date handling, or whether recurring transactions are included or excluded.

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 with no wasted words, but it is so terse that it borders on restating the tool title. It is adequately structured yet lacks substantive detail.

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 and no description of return format, ordering, pagination, or how this relates to recurring transactions, the description leaves important context to inference. An agent can call it from the schema but would lack guidance on expected output and alternatives.

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%, so the input schema already documents all five parameters, their types, and constraints like the one-year endDate limit. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 a verb ('retrieve'), a resource ('transactions'), and a result shape ('a list'). However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling read tools like getRecurringTransactions, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getRecurringTransactions, createTransaction, or editTransaction. The description also does not mention any default behavior or recommended filter usage.

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