query_account_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool searches across multiple transaction types and returns a consolidated list with specific fields. However, it lacks details on pagination, performance, or potential errors, which are important for a query 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 concise with three sentences, front-loading the purpose and providing key details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return values (date, type, amount, description). It covers the complexity of searching across multiple transaction types. However, it omits information about pagination, limits, or sorting, which are relevant for a query tool but not critical.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by mentioning the transaction types searched, which indirectly relates to the `account` parameter, but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already offers. No extra parameter details beyond the schema.

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 it queries all transactions affecting a specific account, lists the transaction types covered (JournalEntry, Purchase, etc.), and specifies the returned fields (date, type, amount). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `get_bill` (single entity retrieval) or `list_accounts` (listing accounts).

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 indicates it is 'useful for investigating account balance discrepancies', providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling context shows many `get_*` tools for individual transactions, making the use case clear.

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