List savings account transactions

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses two non-obvious traits: pagination is handled internally and dates are interpreted in Panama local time. It does not describe the return structure, but the list operation's read-only nature is clear from the wording.

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 two tightly written sentences. Core scope and behavior come first, followed by the sibling redirect, with no redundant filler.

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?

All invocation-critical details are present: single-account scope, date range, internal pagination, timezone handling, and the card-transactions alternative. Since there is no output schema, a note about the returned transaction shape would improve completeness, but this does not seriously hinder selection or invocation.

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 four parameters, including the Panama timezone and portalId provenance. The description only reinforces the account and date-range concepts without adding parameter-level detail, so the baseline score applies.

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: listing transactions for one savings account over a date range. It clearly distinguishes itself from the card-transactions sibling, so an agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly says to use bg_list_card_transactions instead for credit-card charges, and the savings-account/date-range wording defines when this tool is appropriate. The sibling routing is concrete and actionable.

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