search_transactions

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

The description discloses that the tool is read-only, which is a useful safety trait given no annotations exist. However, it does not explain the return format, whether results are a list, how filters combine, or any pagination/error behavior, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

One concise sentence immediately conveys the tool's purpose and filter options, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently structured.

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?

With 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief to be complete. It doesn't clarify that start_date and end_date are optional despite the 'date range' phrasing, nor does it explain search result behavior, any constraints, or how filters interact, creating ambiguity for a complex 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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all 8 parameters, so the description adds little beyond enumerating filter types. The mapping from 'payment type' to transaction_type is implicit but not harmful. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is 100%.

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 searches transactions by date range and optional filters, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that handle recurring plans, subscriptions, and customer vault records by focusing on transactions.

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 gives clear context as a search tool with read-only behavior, implying it is for querying transactions rather than modifying them. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this instead of get_transaction or other alternatives, nor does it state exclusions.

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