qb_query_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the output format (date, amount, payee, etc.) and date format requirement, but omits details on safety (read-only vs. destructive), authentication needs, rate limits, or pagination. The description is adequate but not thorough.

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 two sentences, front-loading the key verb and object. It efficiently conveys the transaction type constraint and output format. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for parameters) without adding length.

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 the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that covers return values, the description partially compensates by documenting txn_type and date fields. However, entity and account remain unexplained, and behavioral aspects are shallow. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe returns, but parameter gaps persist.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It clarifies txn_type (one of the listed types) and date_from/date_to format (YYYY-MM-DD), but does not explain entity or account parameters. This leaves significant ambiguity for three of five 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 clearly states the tool queries transactions of one specific type, listing allowed types (Check, Deposit, etc.), and specifies input date format and output fields. This makes the purpose highly specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like qb_add_transaction or qb_delete_transaction.

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 implies usage for querying transactions but does not explicitly state when to use or when to avoid. No guidance on alternatives or exclusions is provided. While sibling tool names help infer context, the description itself offers no usage directives.

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