search_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It states the search behavior (by text in merchant/concept) but omits details like case sensitivity, exact vs. partial matching, or whether pagination is supported beyond the limit parameter.

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 that front-loads the purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the parameters or result behavior.

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 output schema exists, return values need not be detailed. However, the description is minimal for a search tool with two parameters; it could mention the limit parameter's role or the scope of the search.

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%; the description adds some meaning by specifying the fields searched (merchant and concept), but it does not explain the 'query' or 'limit' parameters beyond what the schema names imply. The description partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 it searches transactions by text in merchant or concept, which is a specific verb and resource. It easily distinguishes from sibling tools like get_transactions which likely lists all transactions without text filtering.

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 usage for text-based searching but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., get_transactions for unfiltered lists). There are no when-not-to-use notes or sibling comparisons.

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