get_transactions_range

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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, the description discloses return shape (transactions array, lastTransactionID), field details (id, time RFC3339, type), decimal string representation for monetary values, signed units, and the 1000-transaction cap. This is rich behavioral context that annotations don't provide.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence summary, then a focused paragraph that adds usage and return details without repetition. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff.

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 read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers usage context, return format, field semantics, limits, and cross-references to related tools. It is complete and self-sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the inclusive nature of the ID range, the purpose of limit, and the transaction_types filter examples, plus the practical warning about range size.

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 'Get the transactions in an inclusive ID range,' which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly referencing list_transactions page links and get_transaction for type-specific fields.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: with ID ranges from list_transactions page links or directly when IDs are known. It also gives a practical constraint (keep ranges modest, max 1000 per request) and points to get_transaction for type-specific details.

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