Search Transactions

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, consistent with the search operation. The description adds behavioral details: 'Returns compact results by default (use verbose=True for full details).' No contradiction.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, followed by details and an Args section. While moderately long, every part adds value; could be slightly more concise but effective.

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?

Given 14 parameters, zero schema description coverage, and an output schema, the description covers all parameter semantics, return format ('JSON with search_metadata and matching transactions'), and default behaviors. Completeness is high.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description provides extensive parameter explanations: lists all 14 parameters, explains 'query' as search term, describes 'verbose' behavior, and notes natural language support for dates ('last month'). This adds significant value beyond bare schema.

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's purpose: 'Search transactions by text using Monarch Money's built-in search.' It lists fields searched (merchant names, descriptions, notes) and distinguishes itself from get_transactions by noting it accepts the same filters plus a search query.

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 usage by stating it accepts all get_transactions filters plus a search query, suggesting use when text search is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives beyond get_transactions.

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