list_transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: results are scoped to the authenticated user and the output is paged. It says nothing about default ordering, what a transaction record contains, or pagination limits beyond the schema defaults.

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?

A single short sentence with the scoping constraint front-loaded and zero redundant phrasing. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 read-only, two-parameter list tool with full schema coverage, the essentials are present. However, there is no output schema, so the agent gets no signal about the shape or ordering of returned transactions, and nothing indicates behavior when the page is beyond the last page.

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 (page, pageSize) are documented with defaults, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The word 'paged' in the description merely corroborates that rather than adding format or boundary details, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List ... transactions') and scopes it to the authenticated user, which cleanly separates it from get_transaction (singular fetch) and get_balance. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of get_transaction as the alternative for retrieving a single record. The list-vs-fetch distinction is only implied by the plural noun, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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