get_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, pagination, or ordering. It only mentions filtering criteria but omits details about the limit parameter, default values, and whether the operation is read-only.

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 sentence with no redundant information. It efficiently communicates the core filters without unnecessary words.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is too brief. It lacks usage context, clarification on optional parameters, and differentiation from sibling tools. The output schema partially compensates for return value details, but overall completeness is low.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and allowed type values (debit/credit), covering account_id, start, end, and type. However, it does not explain the limit parameter or default behavior, leaving partial gaps.

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 tool filters transactions by account, date range (YYYY-MM-DD), and type (debit/credit). It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_balances' or 'list_accounts' that serve different purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_transactions' or 'monthly_summary_tool'. The description only states what it does, not when to prefer it over siblings.

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