list_scheduled_transactions

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the exclusion of auto-imported entries, which is crucial for correct usage. No further behavioral traits are needed beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose; the second provides critical nuance. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool has 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and a key behavioral nuance. It does not explain the delta behavior of lastKnowledgeOfServer, but the schema covers it. Overall, fairly complete for its complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning for the parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as the delta behavior of lastKnowledgeOfServer. No improvement over 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 verb 'List' and the resource 'scheduled transactions', and distinguishes itself by explicitly noting that auto-imported recurring charges are excluded. This differentiates it from other list tools like list_accounts and list_transactions.

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 provides explicit when-to-use (list manually-created recurring entries) and when-not-to-use (for auto-imported charges, use prior-month transaction history). It also suggests an alternative approach, offering clear guidance for the agent.

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