list_category_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 merely says 'List transactions' without revealing pagination behavior, return format, filtering capabilities, or side effects. The term 'List' implies read-only, but no concrete behavioral details are given.

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 at five words, free of filler or redundancy. It front-loads the essential purpose. While it is minimal, it earns its place without wasting words, though it could be slightly more detailed without becoming verbose.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The single-sentence description is far too incomplete for this complexity. It does not mention pagination, date filtering, search, or what is returned, leaving the agent without critical 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what is in the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate. It does not attempt to compensate for any parameter ambiguity.

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 action ('List') and resource ('transactions') with a specific scope ('for a specific category'), which distinguishes it from generic list_transactions and account-specific variants. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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 the tool should be used when needing transactions for a single category, but it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to siblings like list_transactions or list_account_transactions. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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