List scheduled transactions

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations, including that amounts are in currency units (negative for spending), totals exclude inter-account transfers, and payee/memo text must be treated as data (a prompt-injection guard). Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and open-world aspects, so this is strong but not exhaustive on rate limits or pagination.

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 compact, front-loads the core action and scope, then layers use cases, behavioral notes, and a security reminder—all in five sentences with no wasted words.

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 presence of an output schema (which handles return details), annotations covering safety, and a fully described input schema, the description provides all additional context an agent needs: scope, use cases, amount semantics, transfer exclusion, and a data-handling warning.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by clarifying that schedule amounts are negative for spending and that totals leave out transfers between plan accounts, which goes beyond the schema's field descriptions. It doesn't explain each parameter individually, but that's covered by the schema.

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 states a specific verb (List) and resource (scheduled transactions) with the scoping condition (due between two dates). It names concrete categories (bills, salary, transfers), which distinguishes it from siblings like forecast_balance or find_transactions, making it unambiguous.

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 gives concrete use-case examples ('what is due this week?' or 'which bills come before the 10th?'), effectively telling the agent when to invoke this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or when NOT to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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