Search transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about 'exact pagination' and compact result formatting, which is more than nothing. However, it does not disclose behaviors like error handling, rate limits, or the meaning of pagination beyond what the schema parameter descriptions already imply.

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 consists of two concise, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The primary action is stated first, and the result format is a reasonable second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (16 optional parameters, multiple filter types, pagination, and a large sibling family), the description is far too sparse. Even with an output schema present, the agent lacks guidance on how to construct effective searches, what 'exact pagination' implies, or how this tool relates to get_transaction. It does not meet the needs of a complex search endpoint.

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?

With only 19% schema description coverage and 16 parameters, the description carries a heavy burden to explain parameter meaning, but it only mentions the 'compact' detail mode indirectly. It does not clarify how search, date ranges, account_ids, tags, or the various boolean filters behave, leaving significant ambiguity that the schema does not resolve.

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 uses specific verbs ('Search and filter') and a clear resource ('transactions'), and it differentiates itself from sibling tools like get_transaction (single transaction) and get_recurring_transactions by explicitly covering general search and filtering. It also adds concrete detail about result content ('Compact results retain transaction, account, category, merchant, and tag IDs'), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_transaction or create_transaction. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools. While 'search and filter' implies a query use case, no guidance is given for selecting among the many transaction-related tools.

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