List bank transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe, non-destructive nature is covered. The description adds useful context that the operation is scoped to one account and can be time-bounded. It does not discuss pagination behavior or how omitted date filters are handled, but those are partially visible in the schema.

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, front-loaded with the core action and scope, no filler. The cross-reference to nula_list_bank_accounts is directly useful and earns its place.

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?

The tool is read-only and simple, and the key prerequisite for the required parameter is provided. However, the lack of an output schema means the description could have mentioned the return shape, and the phrasing 'for a period' may mislead an agent into thinking date filters are mandatory when the schema marks them optional.

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?

The schema already describes page, limit, and bank_account_id, and provides date format patterns. The description adds meaning to bank_account_id by identifying it as an internal id obtainable from nula_list_bank_accounts, and 'for a period' maps loosely to date_from/date_to. It does not clarify that the date parameters are optional, leaving some semantic ambiguity.

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?

Clearly states the operation ('List bank transactions'), scopes it to a single account and a period, and distinguishes it from nula_list_bank_accounts (accounts vs transactions) and nula_match_bank_transactions (list vs match). The Bulgarian gloss reinforces meaning without adding noise.

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 gives a valuable prerequisite: get account ids from nula_list_bank_accounts. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like nula_match_bank_transactions, nor does it describe scenarios where this tool should not be used. The usage context is implied rather than directly stated.

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