bank.list_transactions_detailed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It notes that IBANs are masked, which is useful, but fails to mention that this is a read-only operation, any authentication requirements, or potential limitations such as pagination or data format.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the core function. It is concise with no filler, which is appropriate for the tool's simplicity, even though it sacrifices some explanatory detail.

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?

The tool has four required parameters, no annotations, and no parameter documentation. The description is too sparse to provide adequate context for correct invocation, such as expected date formats, what 'details' means beyond counterparty, or how this differs from the summary tool. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for lack of usage context.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description provides no additional meaning for any of the four required parameters (date_from, date_to, account_uid, institution). The agent receives no help understanding formats, semantics, or relationships between parameters.

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 lists transactions and specifies the added detail (counterparty name/description). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'list_transactions_summary' by implying a more detailed view, though it does not explicitly name the sibling or contrast the difference.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention the summary variant or other sibling tools, and offers no exclusions or context about appropriate use cases.

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