Search transactions across all accounts

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the behavioral burden. It reveals the operation is an aggregate read/search over every savings account and credit card, which is meaningful scope information. However, it doesn't mention ordering, pagination, response shape, or how limit/defaults behave beyond what the schema already says.

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 sentences with the core scope and filters front-loaded. Every clause earns its place; the examples are illustrative rather than redundant.

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 7-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete for selection and invocation: all parameters are documented in the schema, and the description clarifies aggregate scope. It could still be stronger by stating that results are a list of transactions and noting default result limits or ordering, but these gaps are minor.

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?

All seven parameters already have schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that 'query' filters by description text and 'minAmount'/'maxAmount' apply to amounts, and the examples may help an agent map natural-language requests to parameters, though it adds no syntax or constraints 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Searches every savings account and credit card at once over a date range.' It clearly distinguishes this aggregate tool from the per-account siblings by emphasizing all-accounts scope and optional filters.

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?

'Use this for questions like "how much did I spend at X" or "find that $250 charge in March"' gives concrete invocation triggers. It also contrasts with 'per-account tools one by one,' identifying the alternative class, though it doesn't name a specific sibling or state a hard when-not-to-use condition.

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