Search transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond annotations: default sort order (newest first), pagination, and that income/expense totals are computed over ALL matches in the main currency and only for in-balance accounts. It does not describe the transaction object shape or page-size limits, keeping this at a 4.

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?

Two dense sentences with the core verb and filter list front-loaded, followed by output-behavior context. Every clause carries information; the parenthetical about summarize_transactions is slightly compressed but earns its place as routing guidance.

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 17-parameter, no-output-schema tool with minimal annotations, the description covers the essential gaps: default ordering, pagination, and the aggregation semantics of the returned totals. What is missing is the shape/content of the returned transactions themselves, but the totals explanation handles the highest-risk ambiguity.

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 coverage is 82%, so the schema already documents nearly all 17 parameters, including enum definitions and formats. The description's parameter recap (dates/period, type, accounts, categories, payee, free text, amount, currency) largely restates what the schema already provides, so it earns the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Find transactions') and enumerates the filter dimensions, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from summarize_transactions and clarifies that it returns totals itself, which differentiates it from siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Gives concrete routing guidance: '"how much did I spend on X" needs only this call (or summarize_transactions for breakdowns)', directing the agent to the right alternative for breakdowns. It stops short of stating when this tool should NOT be used, but the usage context is clear.

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