Search transactions across all accounts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that pending purchases ('Compras en proceso') are included and are returned with source 'pending', and that a same-day charge is findable. It omits auth/session requirements and any paging/result-shape behavior beyond the pending note.

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, front-loaded with the core what/scope, then the practical use cases, then the pending nuance. The example phrasings earn their place as routing aids; the only mild excess is restating the filter set that the schema already covers.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must ground the agent itself. It covers scope, the alternative to avoid, pending-transaction behavior and Panama-time semantics, but does not describe result ordering, paging via limit, or the overall return shape — a modest gap for a 7-parameter cross-account search tool.

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 seven parameters (type enum, limit, query, dates, amount bounds). The description only restates the date range, description text and amount filtering at a high level, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and a precise resource scope: 'Searches every savings account and credit card at once over a date range.' This clearly differentiates it from the per-account siblings (bg_list_transactions, bg_list_card_transactions) without the agent needing to open any 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?

Provides concrete routing context with example questions ('how much did I spend at X', 'find that $250 charge in March') and explicitly says it 'saves calling the per-account tools one by one,' naming the alternative class. It does not state when the per-account tools would be preferable, so it falls short of a full 5.

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