income_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what data is returned, but does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, how the optional month is handled (e.g., default to current month), sorting, pagination, or potential errors. This 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 short sentence that directly communicates the core idea. It is appropriately compact and front-loaded, though it could include additional useful details without becoming verbose.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly with confidence. It does not mention return shape, default behavior, edge cases, or error conditions, making it incomplete even for a simple tool.

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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds minimal meaning by indicating that 'source' is the primary filter and 'month' is optional. However, it does not specify the expected format for 'month' (e.g., YYYY-MM) or valid values for 'source', so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 identifies the resource (income transactions) and filters (source, optional month), making the primary purpose reasonably clear. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'retrieve', and does not distinguish this from sibling tools like query_transactions, so it does not achieve a top score.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like query_transactions or income_by_source. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, prerequisites, or any comparison to sibling tools.

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