List Transactions

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's value is the added behavioral context: pagination, a brief-by-default return, and the non-obvious direction quirk (signed CAMT/Wise marker; read-back type always 'C' and not a direction). That is genuinely useful beyond annotations, though it omits things like page-size defaults and the client-side vs server-side filtering distinction that lives only in the schema.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose before routing and the direction caveat. No filler, no repetition of schema fields.

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 14-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent can't infer: default view, pagination, and the direction handling quirk. The remaining filtering-mode details are adequately carried by the schema, so nothing critical is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a caution not fully spelled out in the schema: the read-back type is always 'C' and is not a direction, which prevents misreading the returned type as a direction filter. That nuance gives it a small edge over the schema alone.

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 ('List bank transactions') and immediately notes pagination, so the agent knows what the tool produces. It contrasts with get_transaction for full detail, but it does not otherwise distinguish itself from the many other list_* siblings beyond the resource name.

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 explicit routing: use the default brief view for triage, pass view='full' or call get_transaction for full detail. That names an alternative and the condition selecting it. It stops short of stating when not to use this tool at all (e.g. versus list_journals or the CAMT import tools).

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