search_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 only says 'Search transactions,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not describe the return format, pagination, sort order, case sensitivity, or how limit and verbose affect behavior. This is a significant transparency gap.

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, front-loaded sentence. It avoids unnecessary words and effectively communicates the core purpose and key optional input in a compact form.

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 five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It provides the search criteria but omits details about return values, limit/verbose semantics, pagination, and any behavioral nuances. The description leaves the agent with important gaps in understanding how to invoke the tool effectively.

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 only documents the 'query' parameter. The description adds meaning by clarifying that query is a keyword or merchant name and that date range is optional, which helps interpret start_date and end_date. However, the 'limit' and 'verbose' parameters remain undocumented and the description does not fully compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 that this tool searches transactions by keyword or merchant name, with an optional date range. It is specific enough to indicate the resource and search criteria, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_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 implies that the tool is appropriate when you need to find transactions by keyword or merchant name within a date range. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_transactions, and it does not mention exclusions.

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