get_transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: the default 30-day window and the fact that pagination termination is signalled by a hasNext field in the response — valuable since there is no output schema. It stops short of describing the full response shape (transaction fields, totals, auth/rate limits), so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and default behavior, then pagination, then the alternative-tool routing. Every sentence carries actionable information with no filler.

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 zero-required-param read-only listing tool with 100% schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the remaining agent needs — defaults and pagination termination — are both addressed. Missing only the response payload shape (what a transaction record contains), which matters somewhat given the absence of an output schema.

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 each of the four parameters already documents its format, bounds and default in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's date-range default largely restates the fromDate/toDate schema defaults rather than adding syntax or edge-case guidance.

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 ('Get transaction history from Ameria Bank') plus the scope of the return ('a page of transactions within a date range'). It also names the sibling it is not ('prefer search_transactions'), so an agent can distinguish it from search_transactions without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit defaults ('Defaults to last 30 days'), pagination instructions ('Use page parameter to paginate — check hasNext'), and a concrete when-not-to-use rule routing merchant lookups to search_transactions. Nothing about selecting this tool is left to inference.

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