list_transactions

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

With NO annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job. It discloses the leading count line (so truncation isn't mistaken for the full set), pagination behavior with offset, limit=0 count-only semantics, the compact vs verbose output formats, split collapsing behavior (top 3 by |value| plus +N more), and the register form output format. This is exceptionally rich behavioral disclosure.

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 well-organized with clear sections (leading behavior, formats, collapse behavior, Args). It's front-loaded with the most important caveat (count line) first. However, it's somewhat long and could potentially trim the register form format details, though these earn their place by explaining column semantics.

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 description is comprehensive for a listing tool with an output schema (which presumably documents return structure, so the description needn't repeat that). It covers pagination, formats, collapse behavior, and filter semantics. Given the tool has an output schema and no annotations, this is well-rounded, though it could mention whether results are sorted or the date range default.

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 fully compensate, and it does. Every one of the 6 parameters is described: account (switches to register form), start/end dates (ISO format), limit (default 50 max 250, 0=count only), offset (0-indexed), verbose (full JSON details). This adds meaning well beyond the raw schema types, though some details like date format are somewhat obvious from the type.

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 it lists transactions with optional filters, using a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from get_transaction (for full breakdown of a single transaction) and search_transactions implicitly. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from search_transactions, which is a sibling, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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 solid when-to-use context: it explains the register form for account filtering, when the '+'N more' collapse happens, and when to call get_transaction for full breakdowns. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus search_transactions or list_transactions alternatives, and doesn't discuss prerequisites like date range requirements.

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