ListScheduledTransactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavioral context: results are sorted soonest-first, entries carry frequency and next date, and amounts use a signed convention (negative outflow, positive inflow). It does not mention pagination or total counts, which is a minor gap.

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 tight sentences, zero waste; the ordering and sign conventions an agent most needs are front-loaded. Nothing is redundant with the annotations or schema.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value detail is unnecessary, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description fills in ordering and the amount sign convention. Slightly short on pagination/limit behavior given the 1-500 cap, but essentially complete for this tool.

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 100% and both parameters (limit, plan_id) are fully documented in the schema, including the 'last-used' default and the ListPlans pointer. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('List ... scheduled transactions') and narrows scope to 'upcoming and recurring', which implicitly separates it from Ynab_ListTransactions. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from, but an agent can tell what it returns without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource name (scheduled vs. actual transactions) but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives such as Ynab_ListTransactions or Ynab_CreateScheduledTransaction. Minimum-viable routing only.

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