brc_list_supplier_account_trans

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Gets', implying a read operation, but does not mention any constraints, side effects, pagination, or authentication requirements. The minimal description leaves significant ambiguity.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action. However, it could include a bit more context without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

The description is too minimal for a tool with no output schema. It does not explain what 'account transactions' entails, what the return data looks like, or any filtering. This leaves the agent with incomplete information to interpret results.

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% with both parameters described. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but this is acceptable given the high coverage. However, it does not clarify how the parameters relate (e.g., companyName as context).

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 'Gets a supplier's account transactions' clearly specifies the verb 'Gets' and the resource 'supplier's account transactions', making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like brc_list_supplier_op_bal_trans or brc_list_customer_account_trans, which are similar list operations for suppliers or customers.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for listing supplier-related transactions (e.g., brc_list_supplier_op_bal_trans), the lack of usage context forces the agent to infer based solely on the name.

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