monzo_search_transactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it excels. It discloses auto-sync behavior, case-insensitive partial matching, which fields are searched, the return shape, and even the inclusivity/exclusivity of date parameters. This goes well beyond a basic tool description and gives the agent a thorough understanding of the tool's runtime 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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by two short behavioral notes, a return-format line, and a clean bullet-list of args. Every sentence earns its place—there is no fluff, and the most critical information (what it does) is front-loaded. This is a model of conciseness.

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 (5 parameters, cached data, auto-sync), the description covers all essential aspects: search criteria, cache behavior, matching rules, return format, and parameter semantics. It even explains an edge case (account_type null when unfiltered). The output schema exists and the description does not over-explain return values, striking the right balance.

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's 'Args:' section explains every parameter with meaningful details: the meaning of 'query', valid values for 'account_type' ('personal' or 'joint'), date semantics for 'since' (inclusive) and 'before' (exclusive), and the default for 'limit'. This fully compensates for the minimal schema and adds context that the schema titles and defaults alone do not convey.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search cached transactions by merchant, counterparty (payee), description, or notes.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like monzo_list_transactions by focusing on search and cached data, and also states the return format and key behavior (auto-sync, case-insensitive matching), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context: it is for searching transactions by specific fields, with auto-sync if stale, and explains the matching semantics. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools (e.g., monzo_list_transactions) for cases where a full listing is needed. This is a minor gap, so 4 rather than 5.

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