list_transactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Supports filtering' but doesn't describe key traits like whether it's read-only, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with invalid inputs. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality and filtering options. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits, output format, error handling, and usage context. While concise, it doesn't provide enough detail for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without relying heavily on the schema 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?

The description adds minimal value beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage. It mentions filtering by date, type, category, payee, and account, but the schema already documents these parameters with detailed descriptions. No additional semantics, constraints, or examples are provided, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('transactions for a budget'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_transaction' (singular) and 'list_scheduled_transactions' by focusing on general transactions with filtering, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools like 'list_accounts' or 'list_categories' beyond the resource type.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'get_transaction' (for a single transaction) or 'list_scheduled_transactions' (for scheduled ones), leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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