get_transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds minimal behavioral context: it is scoped to client-account transactions but says nothing about default behavior, result shape, pagination, or how the optional filters interact. It does not contradict annotations but adds little beyond them.

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, focused sentence that immediately states the resource and scope. There is no filler, redundancy, or structural waste. It is concise and front-loaded.

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 read-only list with two optional filters and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps: it does not explain return format, pagination, or whether invoice_id and transaction_id are combined as AND/OR. Given the low complexity and annotations covering safety, a 3 is fair.

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 100% (both invoice_id and transaction_id have descriptions). The tool description adds no extra meaning about how parameters relate or behave, so it does not compensate beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate per the rubric.

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 states the resource ('transactions by client account') and implies the action 'list' via the noun 'Список' (list). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_invoices and get_credit_history, though it does not explicitly name an alternative. This is a clear purpose with only minor lack of an explicit verb.

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 tool is for listing transactions for a client account, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives, nor any exclusions or conditions. It relies on the tool name and context to convey usage. There is no mention of when not to use it or of related tools such as get_invoices.

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