mfc_ca_getTransactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that this is a retrieval operation and identifies the data source, but it does not disclose side-effect status, pagination behavior, ordering, output shape, or any authentication/rate-limit considerations. This is too thin for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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 a single focused sentence with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and every word contributes to identifying what the tool does.

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?

This is a 13-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations. A single purpose sentence is not enough for an agent to use filters correctly, understand return values, or know how this relates to sibling journal and transaction tools. The description leaves too many operational details unspecified.

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 only 15%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It neither explains required date semantics beyond the schema nor clarifies the many filter parameters such as side, order, content, journalizing_statuses, or pagination. It provides only general domain context for the returned transaction list.

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 uses a clear verb ('取得します') and a specific resource ('連携サービスで収集された明細一覧'), so an agent can tell this fetches transaction details collected via the integration service. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like mfc_ca_getJournals, but the resource scope is reasonably specific.

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 phrase '連携サービスで収集された明細一覧' implies this tool is for transaction details collected through linked services, and '(自動連携・手動とも)' clarifies it covers both automatic and manual collection. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance, no exclusion, and no mention of when to choose mfc_ca_getJournals instead.

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