brc_list_allocated_transactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a read-only operation (returns existing allocations) and suggests a safe context (review before destructive actions). While it doesn't detail side effects or rate limits, the read-only nature is sufficiently implied, and there is no contradiction.

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 exceptionally concise: three short sentences that immediately convey the tool's purpose, usage context, and a prerequisite. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded for quick comprehension.

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 simple list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage context, and the required parameter. It could mention return format or pagination, but the current level is sufficient for most use cases given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters (bookTranId and companyName) with descriptions, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description only reiterates the requirement for bookTranId without adding additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool returns transactions already allocated from a specified sender book transaction. It uses a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('transactions already allocated'), and distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by focusing on allocated transactions and pre-reversal use case.

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 explicitly advises using this tool to review existing allocations before reversing or deleting one, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also notes the required parameter (bookTranId), but does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives, though the context implies it is a prerequisite to mutation tools like brc_update_allocations.

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