List Scheduled Transactions

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

The annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the scope ('all scheduled (recurring) transactions') and noting '[1 API call]', which implies efficiency but does not detail behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or error handling. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence with no wasted words. The bracketed '[1 API call]' efficiently conveys additional context without verbosity, making it well-structured and easy to parse.

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's low complexity (read-only, 2 parameters with full schema coverage, no output schema), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose and scope but lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration with sibling tools, leaving some contextual gaps for an agent.

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 input schema fully documents both parameters ('budget_id' and 'last_knowledge_of_server'). The description does not add any additional meaning or context about these parameters beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 all scheduled (recurring) transactions') and resource ('for a budget'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'list_transactions' or 'get_scheduled_transaction', which would be needed for a score of 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'list_transactions' for non-recurring transactions or 'get_scheduled_transaction' for a single scheduled transaction. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, offering minimal usage direction.

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