Transactions List

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful non-annotation context: required OAuth scope read_payments, API version 2025-03, and the return envelope shape.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and structured with useful metadata in separate lines. Every element--purpose, endpoint, scope, API version, return shape--adds practical value.

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 five-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return envelope, required scope, API version, and endpoint. It remains slightly incomplete on when to choose this over tiendanube_transactions_get and on pagination caveats beyond the schema.

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 order_id, page, per_page, fields, and response_format are already documented in the schema. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond restating the order-scoped path, so the baseline 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: 'List payment transactions of an order', and reinforces it with the HTTP path GET /orders/{order_id}/transactions. It implicitly distinguishes list from tiendanube_transactions_get, but does not explicitly name or contrast that sibling.

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?

Usage is implied by 'of an order' and the required order_id parameter, and the required scope read_payments gives permission context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative such as tiendanube_transactions_get.

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