bank.list_transactions_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the limited field set, but it does not mention pagination, ordering, authentication requirements, or whether all transactions in the range are returned. For a simple read operation, this is minimally adequate but not rich in context.

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 wastes no words. It conveys the core purpose and the key limitation in a compact manner, making it easy to parse at a glance.

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 tool has four required parameters with no descriptions, no annotations, and a sibling with overlapping scope, the description is too sparse. It fails to provide guidance on how the tool fits into a workflow, what distinguishes it from the detailed version, or any security/access considerations. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, but the description still leaves significant gaps.

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 compensate for explaining the parameters. It only implies 'date range' for date_from/date_to, leaving institution and account_uid entirely unexplained. This partial coverage is insufficient given all four parameters are required.

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 for a date range and specifies the exact fields returned (date, amount, currency only). This directly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'bank.list_transactions_detailed' through the word 'summary' and the explicit 'only' constraint.

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 phrase 'date, amount, currency only' implies a summary use case, which contrasts with the detailed sibling. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus bank.list_transactions_detailed, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the choice to inference.

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