search_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses nothing about how searching works (exact vs. fuzzy match), result ordering, pagination, or how the limit parameter is applied. Agents have no way to anticipate tool behavior beyond guessing from the name.

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?

Three words is under-specification rather than conciseness; there is no substance to structure or front-load. A terse description only earns a high score when it packs meaningful distinctions, which this one does not.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is the only source of guidance and it is effectively empty. An agent cannot determine the query format, result shape, or how this tool differs from list_transactions, making correct invocation largely guesswork.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema's silence about parameter meaning. It does not: there is no explanation of what format 'query' expects (free text, filters, IDs) or how 'limit' constrains results. The description adds zero value beyond the raw schema field names.

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?

"Search for transactions" names a clear verb and resource, but it is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name and adds no scope or filtering semantics. It also fails to differentiate from the nearby sibling list_transactions, leaving the agent unable to tell which retrieval tool is appropriate.

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?

There is no guidance whatsoever about when to use this tool versus list_transactions, get_transaction, or other transaction tools. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, so the agent must guess at the intended use case.

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