get_transactions

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the specific fields returned (date, payee, category, amount, notes, account, cleared status), which is useful context beyond the annotation. No contradictions exist.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The action ('List transactions') is front-loaded, and the return fields are listed compactly. 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?

For a listing tool with 8 optional parameters, full schema coverage, and a readOnly annotation, the description covers the core purpose and return fields. It lacks details like default sorting or pagination, but these are not critical for a basic list operation, and the schema provides defaults for limit and dates. The tool is adequately specified.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 8 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond saying 'optional filters'; it doesn't compensate further because the schema already handles parameter meaning adequately.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'transactions', and mentions optional filters, distinguishing it from sibling tools that create, update, or delete transactions. It also enumerates the returned fields, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 this is the tool to retrieve transactions, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_budget_month or spending_by_category. There are no exclusions or alternative routing provided, leaving the agent to infer from the name and siblings.

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