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 disclose meaningful traits: date format and inclusive range, what `search` matches against, the effect of omitting account_id, and the fresh=true dependency on account_id. It still omits limit/pagination behavior and the include_pending default, but the behavioral coverage is well above average.

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?

Four tight sentences, each adding distinct information with zero filler, and the resource scope is front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the highest-value behaviors but leaves three parameters undocumented. Return values need no explanation since no output schema exists, but the parameter gaps keep this from being complete.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate. It documents from_date/to_date, search, account_id, and fresh (5 of 8), but leaves limit, provider_id, and include_pending entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb (Query) and resource (transactions) with scope (across accounts and cards), which cleanly separates it from siblings like get_balance and list_accounts. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling tool, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 offers scoping hints (omit account_id to search every account) but never states when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_balance or list_standing_orders. No when-not conditions or alternative routing are given.

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