boond_banking_transactions_search

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. 'Search' implies a read-only operation but is not explicit about side effects, authentication, pagination behavior, or response format. The description adds minimal transparency beyond the name.

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 short sentence, which is efficient, but it is under-specified rather than truly concise. It does not front-load critical information like required parameters or usage context, so while it has no fluff, it lacks substance.

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 search tool with four parameters and no output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what constitutes a valid search, how pagination works, what the query parameter filters, or what the response contains. An agent cannot reliably call this tool correctly based on the description alone.

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% – the description does not explain any of the four parameters. It only hints at accountId via 'for a specific account', leaving page, limit, and query completely undocumented. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema details.

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 searches banking transactions and requires a specific account, distinguishing it from account-level tools like banking_accounts_get. However, it doesn't specify what 'search' entails (e.g., filtering, sorting) or explicitly name alternatives, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 the need for an accountId but gives no guidance on when to use this vs other banking tools, how to combine with account search, or the purpose of the query, page, and limit parameters. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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