list_transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the default 30-day window when dates are omitted, oldest-first ordering, and the pagination contract with next_offset becoming null on the final page. It stops short of noting anything about rate limits or cost of deep offsets.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler. The range semantics and default window are front-loaded, and paging is handled in a compact follow-up sentence.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation and pagination is adequately described. But for a seven-parameter read tool with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the filter parameters (bank, account_id, include_pending) unexplained, so an agent cannot confidently construct a filtered query.

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 carries the full burden. It explains the format and semantics of since, before, limit and offset well, but leaves three of seven parameters — bank, account_id and include_pending — completely undocumented in both the schema and the 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 the resource (transactions), the filter semantics (since <= date < before), the default window (last 30 days) and the sort order (oldest first), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling list_pending or explain why one would choose this over list_pending, despite this tool exposing include_pending.

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?

Usage is only implied: the default last-30-days window hints at the common case, and the paging sentence implies repeated calls for large result sets. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to list_pending or list_accounts as preparation steps.

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