List credit card transactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully exposes a key behavioral quirk: BG statement periods are not calendar months and run from previous cutoff dates. It does not mention return structure or pagination, but the core behavioral nuance is well covered.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the resource and scope, the period selection rule, and the critical statement-period nuance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words.

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 low-complexity read-only list tool, the description plus fully documented schema is sufficient to select and call the tool correctly. It covers period semantics and filtering behavior, though the lack of an output schema means return shape is not described.

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 schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds value by explaining the combined behavior of omitting month/year and the relationship between clampToMonth and the calendar-month restriction, but it does not add syntax-level detail beyond the schema.

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 it lists charges and payments on a credit card for a statement period, and it distinguishes statement periods from calendar months. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like bg_list_transactions or bg_search_transactions, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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 concrete invocation guidance: pass month/year for a specific period, omit both for the current period, and use clampToMonth to restrict to the calendar month. It does not mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives, but the usage context is clear.

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