quipu_transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuine behavioral facts beyond that: results are bounded, and cursor state is untouched. It does not disclose what "transaction metadata" contains, the default/max bound, or whether `since` is inclusive.

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?

A single eleven-word sentence with zero filler, the scoping condition front-loaded and the behavioral caveat trailing. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations beyond generic safety hints, the description is the only place ambiguity could be resolved and it under-delivers. An agent still cannot tell what a transaction is in this system, how to page with these two integers, or how the call relates to the many event/changes siblings.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and largely fails to. "After since" usefully implies the bound is exclusive, and "bounded" gestures at `limit`, but neither the type/units of `since` (transaction id? sequence? timestamp?) nor `limit`'s default, maximum, or pagination semantics are explained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Read bounded transaction metadata") scoped by a condition ("after since"), which is clearer than a tautology. It stops short of distinguishing itself from plausible siblings such as quipu_events, quipu_changes, or quipu_graph_events, and "transaction metadata" remains somewhat opaque.

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?

"After since" implies the incremental-polling use case and "does not change a cursor" hints that a cursor-advancing alternative exists, but that alternative is never named and no when-not condition is given. The agent must infer usage from an oblique negative clause rather than explicit routing.

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