list_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions the default date range. It omits pagination behavior, filtering semantics (all, item), and whether the operation is read-only (though 'list' implies it). This leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 one sentence and front-loaded with no redundant words. However, given the tool's complexity (six parameters), it is too short to be 'appropriately sized' — it under-specifies rather than being merely concise.

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?

The tool has six optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers only the date-range aspect and default, leaving item/all filtering and pagination unexplained. This is insufficient for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains startDate and endDate via 'date range' and the default, but leaves all, item, count, and offset entirely undocumented. For six parameters, this is a major 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 clearly identifies the action (list transactions) and the date-range scope, distinguishing it from sibling list_items and get_balances. However, it does not mention the optional filtering parameters (all, item) or pagination, so it lacks explicit differentiation from potential variants.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_balances or sync_transactions. The description only notes the default date range but includes no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations.

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