get_transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by listing returned fields. However, it does not disclose ordering, pagination beyond the limit parameter, or default behavior when no filters are applied. This is adequate but not rich.

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, clear sentence. It is appropriately concise but could include a brief note on ordering or default limit without being verbose.

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 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose but lacks details on result ordering, pagination beyond limit, or behavior with multiple filters. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 well-documented parameters. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond 'optional filters' and the list of returned fields. Without extra context, score is baseline 3.

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 lists transactions with optional filters and specifies the returned fields (date, payee, category, amount, notes, account, cleared status). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_transaction, update_transaction, and delete_transaction.

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 listing transactions with filters but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like balance_history or budget_vs_actual. No exclusions or when-not-to-use are mentioned.

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