List Transactions

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it specifies '[1 API call]' (implying a single request, useful for rate limit awareness) and 'Returns most recent transactions first' (ordering behavior not indicated in annotations). This compensates well for the lack of other annotations like rateLimitHint.

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—two sentences with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently adds key behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place by providing distinct value.

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 moderate complexity (filtered listing), rich annotations (readOnlyHint), and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It adds useful behavioral context (API call count, sorting). The main gap is lack of output format details, but since there's no output schema, this isn't severely penalized.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying filtering capabilities ('optional filters'), which is already covered in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema 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 verb ('List') and resource ('transactions for a budget'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'list_account_transactions' or 'list_month_transactions', which also list transactions but with different scopes.

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 mentions 'optional filters' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_account_transactions' or 'get_transaction'. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving usage context implied at best.

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