list_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the exclude_fields behavior but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or pagination. The tool's safety or destructive potential is not addressed.

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 concise and front-loaded: first sentence states the main action, then a parameter list with clear explanations. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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 covers purpose, parameters, and a cross-reference. However, it omits pagination, ordering, or limits for large result sets, which are relevant for list operations. Still, the core functionality is well explained.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining all four parameters: plan_id (with cross-reference), since_date (format), type (valid values), and exclude_fields (behavior, defaults, and overrides). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 'List transactions in a plan' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_transactions' by mentioning filtering by date and type, which aligns with a straightforward list operation.

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 usage (list all or filtered transactions) and cross-references 'list_plans' for finding plan IDs, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_transactions' or 'get_transactions_by_account'. Lacks when-not guidance.

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