list_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses default date range and optional filters, but does not state that the operation is read-only, nor mention pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with 8 parameters.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Every sentence adds value: first states purpose and filters, second gives default behavior. No waste.

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?

For a list tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers defaults and filter types, but does not explain return value, pagination behavior, or typical usage scenarios. Schema descriptions fill some gaps, but overall completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema – it mentions 'debit/credit type filtering' which is already in the enum, and 'amount range' which is covered by 'amountMin' and 'amountMax'. No new semantic insight.

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 tool lists bank transactions with optional filters. It is a specific verb-resource pairing. However, it does not differentiate from sibling 'search_transactions', which may have overlapping functionality.

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 implies usage for listing transactions with filters and mentions a default 90-day window, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_transactions' or 'spending_summary'. No exclusions are stated.

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