List bank transactions

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

The description discloses 'Read-only', indicating no mutations. With no annotations, this is the only behavioral trait mentioned. It lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or error handling, but the schema covers the limit parameter hinting at result sizing.

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: one sentence plus 'Read-only.' It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of transaction objects). Given the tool has 4 parameters and is a data retrieval operation, the description lacks completeness about the result format.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description adds value by linking 'optionally for one account and period' to the checkAccountId and date parameters, providing context beyond the 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 lists bank transactions, optionally filtered by account and period. It is a specific verb+resource combination that is distinct from sibling tools like sevdesk_reconcile_transactions.

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 when to use (listing transactions with optional filters) and includes 'Read-only' hinting at safe usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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