nessie_get_transactions

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds useful behaviors beyond those: newest-first ordering, literal transaction type tags, and the limitation that credit utilization cannot be derived from Nessie account data. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences lead with the core action and output, then declare read-only safety, then add a relevant limitation. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 single-required-parameter read-only list operation, the description covers what is returned, ordering, safety, and an important analytic limitation. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit description of the feed and tags.

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?

There is only one parameter, accountId, and its schema description already explains it thoroughly as an opaque string id. The tool description does not add parameter-specific semantics, so it relies on the 100% 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 names a specific verb ('List'), the resource ('an account's deposits and withdrawals'), and the distinguishing output ('one newest-first feed with literal transaction type tags'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools nessie_list_deposits and nessie_list_withdrawals, which return only a single transaction type.

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?

It establishes the use case: retrieve an account's combined deposit and withdrawal activity in reverse chronological order. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'one ... feed' phrasing implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_deposits/list_withdrawals tools.

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