monzo_list_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It richly describes that the tool uses a local cache, auto-syncs when stale, queries a synced database rather than the live API, and includes counterparty objects for bank transfers. It also discloses the response shape. This is strong, but lacks mentions of rate limits, error cases, or pagination behavior.

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 well-structured with a clear opening, behavioral notes, return format, and an argument list. Every sentence adds value, and the argument list is formatted for easy parsing. It is appropriately sized given the six parameters and the need to clarify the cache-based nature.

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's moderate complexity, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, data source, sync behavior, return shape, and every parameter. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly, and the output schema backs the return format. No significant gaps remain.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description provides thorough parameter semantics for all six parameters: types, defaults, formats, examples, and matching behavior. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions and adds concrete use guidance.

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's function: 'List transactions from the local cache.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings like monzo_search_transactions by explicitly noting it queries the synced transaction database, not the live API, giving it a distinct scope.

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 useful context about when to use the tool: it reads from the cached/synced database and auto-syncs if stale. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for live queries, but the 'not the live API' exclusion helps agents infer its appropriate use case. Clear context but lacks explicit alternative naming.

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