search_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 key behavioral traits: the pagination header 'Showing X-Y of Z transactions', the split-collapsing behavior for >4 splits, the compact vs verbose output mode, and the default/return behavior. This is substantive disclosure of behavior beyond the schema.

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 a compact-format spec first, then the search-result behavior, then a clear Args section covering all 5 parameters. It's front-loaded with the essential purpose and output format. Slightly verbose in the amount-syntax explanation but each part earns its place and no sentence is wasted.

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?

There is an output schema present which reduces the burden of explaining return values. The description covers the compact format's structure, collapse behavior, pagination mechanics, and all parameter semantics comprehensively. The only minor gap is not explicitly clarifying edge cases in amount parsing, but this is well covered for a search tool with a strong output schema.

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 fully. It does: explaining query syntax for amounts (exact '100', greater '>100', less '<100', range '100-200'), field choices, limit semantics (default 50, max 250, 0=count only), offset semantics (0-indexed), and verbose flag behavior. This is rich parameter documentation well beyond the bare schema.

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 the tool 'Search transactions by description, memo, notes, or amount' with a specific verb (search), specific resource (transactions), and the fields being searched. It distinguishes well from siblings like list_transactions and get_transaction by specifying search-by-field semantics and describing the compact output format.

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 explains how to page with offset, use limit=0 for count-only, and calls out that transactions with >4 splits collapse to top-3 with '+N more' requiring get_transaction call. It gives clear context on when to use this tool (searching across fields) though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like list_transactions or get_transaction as exclusions, relying on the implicit distinction via output format description.

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