query_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: 'month wins and days is ignored if both are given', 'most recent first', 'posted transactions', and the substring match on merchant. This goes beyond the schema, though it omits response format and error behavior.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the main action and all filters. The parenthetical is dense but precisely conveys the precedence behavior. 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?

For a listing tool with 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the important behaviors: filtering options, precedence, and ordering. It could mention the limit parameter more explicitly, but the schema covers it. Adequately complete for its complexity.

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 67% (days and category lack descriptions). The description adds meaning to the month/days combination (month wins, days ignored), specifies 'merchant substring', and notes 'min amount' as a filter. It does not repeat limit defaults but compensates for the under-described parameters.

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 clearly states 'List posted transactions' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like get_category_breakdown (aggregations) and run_sql (arbitrary SQL). It also specifies the scope 'posted' and the key filtering dimensions.

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 clear context on when to use: to list posted transactions with optional filters, including the precedence rule (month wins). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling reporting tools but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Clear context with no exclusions matches a 4.

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