get_investment_transactions_tool

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, but it does not disclose side effects, read-only guarantees, pagination, data freshness, or error behavior. The short phrase only describes the content category, not how the tool behaves.

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 brief and front-loads the core purpose and the key platform constraint. It avoids fluff, though the first line is a sentence fragment rather than a complete verb phrase.

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 description lacks essential invocation context: no return shape, no date-format guidance, no account-scoping semantics, and no explanation of how this differs operationally from sibling transaction tools. The Plaid-only note is useful but insufficient for reliable use.

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?

The schema has no parameter descriptions and the description adds no meaning to start_date, end_date, account_id, or limit. It does not mention date formats, whether account_id is required for certain providers, or how limit is applied, leaving the agent to guess.

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 identifies the resource as brokerage transactions and enumerates the relevant transaction kinds (buys, sells, dividends, fees). It also distinguishes this tool from generic transaction tools by the investment focus and the Plaid-only constraint.

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 states a concrete platform limitation: Plaid-only, and that Teller has no INVESTMENTS capability. However, it does not explicitly direct the agent to prefer this tool over get_transactions_tool or search_transactions_tool for investment-related calls.

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