list_order_transactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the types of data returned (payment attempts, captures, refunds, voids), which informs the agent about expected output. It does not mention pagination or auth requirements, but for a read-only list operation, the behavioral disclosure is reasonably 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and the second sentence adds valuable detail about return contents. No superfluous words, earning a top score.

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 one required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the purpose and return types. It could mention response format or ordering, but for a simple list tool, the provided information is sufficient for correct usage.

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 schema already covers the only parameter (order_id) with a clear description and required flag. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the action (List all transactions), the resource (specific order), and enumerates the transaction types included (payment attempts, captures, refunds, voids). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_fulfillments_for_order and list_refunds by emphasizing comprehensiveness.

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 provides clear context: use this tool when needing all transactions for a specific order. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the phrase 'for a specific order' and the focus on transaction types imply its appropriate use case.

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