Get account transactions

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent read, so the description spends its space on things annotations cannot convey: signed amounts (negative = money out), newest-first ordering, default 100 / max 250 cap, the truncation-and-retry contract, and an explicit prompt-injection warning about bank-supplied text fields. That last item is genuinely valuable behavioral context for an open-world read tool.

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?

Four compact sentences, each front-loading the highest-value fact: scope first, then amount semantics, then paging behavior, then the safety warning. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description still conveys the return characteristics an agent needs: ordering, the truncated flag and how to react to it, and the untrusted nature of text fields. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, nothing essential to a correct call is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds meaning by tying from/to to inclusive date semantics, restating the limit default/cap in operational terms, and explaining the consequence of hitting that cap via the truncated flag. include_pending is left entirely to 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get transactions for one account'), which is enough to tell it apart from lunchflow_list_accounts and lunchflow_get_account_balance. It does not explicitly name those siblings or contrast itself with an all-accounts transaction listing, which keeps it 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?

It gives concrete operating guidance: use from/to to narrow the range, mindful of the limit cap, and retry with a narrower range when 'truncated' is true. The account_id parameter steers the agent to lunchflow_list_accounts for discovery. No explicit when-not-to-use case versus the balance sibling, but the context is unambiguous.

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