Search Transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the cost ($0.10) and API key requirement, and by specifying the tag query syntax (project:/ext:/rail:). These go beyond annotations, though it does not mention pagination or result limits.

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 a single concise sentence with a parenthetical for cost/requirements. It front-loads the core purpose and keeps all information essential, with no 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?

Given 6 parameters and low schema coverage, the description covers the main search modes but omits explanations for several parameters (limit, project, include_archived) and does not mention pagination behavior. An output schema exists, so return format is not required, but the description is not fully complete for an agent to use all parameters 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 description coverage is only 17% (only cursor is described). The description adds meaning for 'query' (keyword search over fields) and 'tag' (exact tag query with prefixes), but leaves 'limit', 'project', 'include_archived', and 'cursor' unexplained. It partially compensates for low coverage but not fully.

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 clearly states the action ('keyword search' and 'exact tag query') and the resource (transactions), specifying the fields searched (merchant/description/category). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_transactions by focusing on search semantics, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies use for searching transactions rather than listing them, but does not explicitly contrast with get_transactions or other search tools. It mentions prerequisites (API key, cost) which help usage decisions, but no when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance.

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