list_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List transactions with pagination and filtering options,' which is already evident from the tool name and schema. It doesn't reveal the return format, whether the operation is read-only, or any rate/limit/ordering behavior, which is important for an unannotated tool.

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 with the verb and resource bold and explicit. There is zero redundancy or filler. It is appropriately concise given that the schema already documents parameters.

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 tool with 9 parameters and no output schema or annotations, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It omits information about return values, pagination semantics (e.g., page numbering, perPage cap), and default ordering. The agent would need to infer these from external documentation or trial and error.

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 100% description coverage for all 9 parameters, including date formats, enums, and defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the general mention of pagination and filtering, so the schema does the heavy lifting. This matches 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 action ('List') and resource ('transactions'), and adds 'pagination and filtering options' which aligns with the schema. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like fetch_transaction or export_transactions, but the name and wording make the purpose 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fetch_transaction for a single transaction or export_transactions for bulk export. The description doesn't mention any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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