Transactions: get transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description reinforces this with 'READ-ONLY: Fetches data. Makes no changes to the accounting records.' It adds pagination behavior (limit/offset, total in rows) and the recommendation to use bounded date ranges, which goes beyond the annotations and enriches the agent's understanding.

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 structured logically: a clear READ-ONLY tag, the action, usage, alternative, pagination note, and endpoint. While it is a bit longer than minimal, every sentence adds value and it is front-loaded with the key purpose. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to detail return fields, but it does mention the response includes rows and transaction data, which is helpful. It covers pagination, alternatives, and practical advice on date ranges. It is complete for an agent to call correctly, though it could note default sorting behaviors (which are in 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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description mentions limit, offset, and date range but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 gets transactions for a customer account, returns row count and transaction array, and explicitly differentiates from transactions_get_by_id. It uses specific verbs and resource names, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

It gives explicit usage context: 'Use to search bank transactions by account and date range' and 'To fetch one known transaction, use transactions_get_by_id.' It also advises bounding the date range, providing practical guidance on when and how to use the tool.

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