get_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Fetch transactions', which implies a read operation. It does not mention output format, pagination, potential performance impacts, or any side effects, leaving the agent underinformed about what to expect.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action and scope. It is concise and immediately conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary 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?

No output schema and sparse annotations put the burden on the description to explain what the tool returns, but it says nothing about return structure, ordering, or behavior. Given the tool has 4 parameters and represents a data-fetching operation, the description is too thin to be fully actionable.

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 descriptions cover 75% of parameters (item_id, start_date, end_date) with format and default info. The description's 'date range' and 'across all linked Items' reinforce but do not add beyond the schema; the 'count' parameter remains undocumented in both schema and description, so the added value is minimal.

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?

Description clearly states the action (Fetch), resource (transactions), and scope (date range, all linked Items), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_balances, get_liabilities, and get_investments. The inclusion of 'via Plaid CLI' and 'across all linked Items' adds specificity without ambiguity.

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 on when to use this tool: when you need transactions within a date range across all linked items. It stops short of naming alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use advice, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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