load_historic_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation ('load'), but does not mention side effects, requirements (e.g., authentication), rate limits, or any constraints beyond the 24-month window.

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, clear sentence with no extraneous words. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices some useful detail.

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 presence of an output schema, the description is not required to detail return values, but it omits important context such as whether the data is paginated, ordered, or limited to certain account types. The 24-month constraint is valuable, but overall completeness is low.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'for an account' hinting at account_id's role, but does not explain the purpose of customer_id (likely for authorization) or provide any detail about parameter formats, constraints, or dependencies.

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 identifies the verb 'load' and the resource 'historic transactions' with a specific time range 'up to 24 months'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_account_transactions by emphasizing 'historic' and a specific duration, though it could explicitly differentiate from similar tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_account_transactions or get_customer_transactions. The description lacks context for selecting this tool over others.

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