getScheduledTransactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without describing side effects, read-only nature, pagination, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. The word 'Returns' implies read-only, but this is not explicit.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. While it could be slightly expanded for clarity, it is appropriately concise for a simple operation. It is not structured with headings or bullet points, but the brevity is acceptable.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what scheduled transactions are, the shape of the results, or any constraints. The agent may need to infer too much from the sibling tool names.

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 coverage is 100%, and the parameter descriptions in the schema are detailed and self-explanatory (e.g., special values for 'plan_id'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 verb 'Returns' and resource 'scheduled transactions' clearly indicate the action. However, the description omits the plan-scoping implied by the required 'plan_id' parameter, which could mislead an agent into thinking it returns all scheduled transactions across plans. It differentiates from 'getScheduledTransactionById' by using 'all', but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'getScheduledTransactionById', 'updateScheduledTransaction', etc. The context of the plan parameter is left implicit, and there is no mention of prerequisites or typical use cases.

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