search_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It details case-insensitive matching, date range filtering, amount range with absolute/raw value caveat, and exclude_fields default/override behavior. This provides comprehensive understanding of the tool's behavior beyond what the schema offers.

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: a one-sentence purpose followed by a bullet list of parameters. Every sentence adds necessary information. No redundant or missing details.

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?

The description covers all parameters and key behaviors. However, given the existence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. A minor gap is lack of mention of pagination or result limits, but overall it is complete for a search tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so excellently: explains query field scope, since_date format, amount_min/max filtering logic, and exclude_fields override. Each parameter's semantics are clearly defined, adding significant value over the 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 the tool's purpose: 'Search transactions by text across payee, memo, and category fields.' The verb 'Search' and resource 'transactions' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like list_transactions and get_transaction by emphasizing text-based search across multiple fields.

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 context for using parameters (e.g., plan_id: 'use list_plans to find available IDs') and explains exclude_fields behavior. However, it does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives like list_transactions or when not to use it, nor does it mention any prerequisites or side effects.

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