Scheduled transactions — List

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: amounts are in milliunits (1000 = $1.00), each record carries date_next, and the server_knowledge delta-sync contract is explained. No rate limits or error semantics, but strong for a list tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation and its [READ] marker, then date_next prefix, units, and delta-sync. Every sentence earns its place, though the closing sentence about changes_since is more about routing than about this tool and could be trimmed.

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 2-parameter list tool with an output schema (so return shape need not be described), the description covers the operation, the delta-sync contract, units, and an included field. The only hole is the undefined plan_id, which is minor given the surrounding plans_* tools.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does for the non-obvious parameter: last_knowledge_of_server is defined as the server_knowledge value returned by an earlier response. plan_id is never mentioned, which keeps this from a 5.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource plus scope: "[READ] List all scheduled transactions for a plan," and flags the [READ] nature up front. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the closely-named sibling scheduled_transactions_get or from the broader changes_since, so the agent must infer the list-vs-single distinction.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use rule for delta sync ("pass last_knowledge_of_server … YNAB sends only what changed") and names changes_since as the broader cross-entity alternative. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use or a direct either/or against scheduled_transactions_get.

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