get_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses newest-first ordering, inclusive date semantics, page size default and maximum, offset-based pagination, and a practical context-window warning ('keep small to protect context'). This goes well 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 first line is a crisp summary, and the Args section is tightly formatted with no filler. Every sentence earns its place by conveying scope, defaults, limits, or safety guidance.

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 that an output schema exists, return fields need not be restated. The description covers prerequisites, date range behavior, pagination, and resource-protection guidance, leaving no meaningful gaps for a read-only transaction listing tool.

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%, but the description compensates fully by explaining every parameter: account_id's source, date_from/date_to as optional inclusive ISO dates, limit's default/max/contextual caution, and offset's pagination role. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema types and defaults.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get statement transactions for one account, newest first.' It clearly identifies that this tool retrieves transactions for a single account and distinguishes itself from siblings like list_accounts, get_balances, and list_connections.

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?

Provides clear usage context: one account, optional inclusive date range, and pagination. It also points to the prerequisite 'Account id from list_accounts.' While it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, the purpose and sibling set make the intended use clear.

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