pending_transactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly indicates a read-only retrieval ('取得する') and scopes the data to 'unprocessed' items. No side effects are mentioned, and for a simple listing operation, this level of disclosure is sufficient. It does not contradict any annotation.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and purpose, then notes filtering options. Every word is relevant, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple list retrieval tool with a well-covered schema, the description is complete enough. It explains what is returned (a list), the scope (unprocessed), and the optional filters. The lack of an output schema does not require a detailed return-format description since '一覧' implies a list. It could have gone further by mentioning default date ranges, but those are already in the schema.

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 covers all four parameters with descriptions and defaults (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of filtering by account name and period merely restates what the schema already documents without adding new semantic meaning, such as format details or relationships between parameters.

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 specific verb ('取得する' / retrieve) and a clear resource ('未処理の口座明細一覧' / unprocessed account statements), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_deals and list_invoices. It also mentions filtering capabilities, making its function unambiguous.

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 clearly implies the usage context: when you need a list of pending/unposted account statements, optionally filtered by account name and date range. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the distinct resource and purpose provide adequate guidance without confusion.

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