Bookkeeping — Transaction history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it returns aggregated inflow, outflow, and net totals in addition to the transaction list, and enforces single-filter selection. It does not mention pagination or result limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with a [READ] tag and the core action, then filters, then the date parameter detail. No filler. Slightly dense around the filter list, but every sentence carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, and the description usefully names the aggregate totals anyway. The gap is plan_id, which is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving an agent unsure how it interacts with the filter parameters.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does partially: since_date gets a format and example ('2024-01-01'), and the mutual exclusivity of the three *_id filters is conveyed. But plan_id is never explained, and the filter params get no ID-format guidance. Baseline is above 1 only because of the real added meaning.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve recent transactions') and states the scope: filters plus inflow/outflow/net totals. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many sibling list tools (transactions_list, transactions_list_by_account, etc.), so an agent must infer the difference.

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?

It provides the key usage constraint that only one of payee_id, category_id, or account_id should be used at a time, which is useful filtering guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over the sibling transactions_* list tools, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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