aptos_get_account_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 of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'get transactions' without mentioning pagination, ordering, read-only guarantees, rate limits, or any side effects. This adds little beyond what the tool name already conveys.

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 a single, short sentence with no redundant or filler words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it could arguably include more context while still being concise. Overall it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally complete—it tells the user what it does but omits potential behavioral nuances like default limit behavior or return format. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail could improve completeness, but it remains adequate for basic 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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions (address is 'The Aptos address', limit is 'Max transactions to return'). The tool description itself does not add further parameter context, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already fully documents the parameters.

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 'Get transactions for an account' clearly states the verb (get) and resource (transactions for an account). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool aptos_get_transaction by indicating it targets all transactions for an account rather than a single transaction. However, it does not explicitly mention any unique filtering or scope details beyond the account context.

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 implies usage for retrieving an account's transaction history, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like aptos_get_transaction. There are no exclusions or 'use this instead of' statements, so the guidance is only implicit through the naming and description.

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