list_scheduled_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default output format (compact one-line-per-schedule), the count-only behavior with limit=0, pagination semantics, and that verbose returns full JSON. It does not mention whether enabled_only filters out disabled schedules by default beyond parameter docs, though the Args section covers this. Good disclosure for a read-only listing tool.

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?

Description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first line, then uses a helpful structured Args section. The output-format explanation (count line, compact format, verbose) is valuable in the prose. Could tighten slightly but the structured parameter documentation justifies the length.

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?

A listing tool with 4 optional parameters, an output schema present, and no nested objects. The description adequately covers output format quirks (count line, limit=0 behavior, verbose full JSON) and pagination, which are the nontrivial aspects. With an output schema available for return values, this is reasonably complete for a list operation.

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 for all 4 parameters. The Args section explains each: enabled_only (default True), verbose (full JSON), limit (page size, 0=count only), offset (0-indexed). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, which only shows titles and defaults. Not a 5 because some nuances (e.g., max 250 boundary) are mentioned but parameter interdependencies are light.

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?

Description clearly states 'List all scheduled transactions' with a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself by covering the list output format (count line, one-line-per-schedule), pagination behavior, and verbose mode for full JSON details. Distinguishes from siblings like create/update/delete/get_upcoming.

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?

Description gives explicit guidance on pagination (offset/limit), count-only mode, and verbose mode. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for filtering (e.g., get_upcoming_transactions for date-specific queries) or state when NOT to use this tool. Context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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