getTransactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the exclusion of pending transactions, which is helpful, but omits other important behaviors such as pagination, error handling, authentication requirements, or response format.

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, concise sentence that packs the core information: verb, resource, and key exclusion. No superfluous words or repetition.

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 is minimal; it lacks explanation of return values (no output schema) and does not help the agent differentiate among the many sibling transaction tools. A bit more context about the scope of 'plan transactions' would improve completeness.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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 it returns plan transactions and specifies an important exclusion (pending transactions). However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like getTransactionsByAccount or getTransactionById, leaving ambiguity about what 'plan transactions' means relative to other transaction endpoints.

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 versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios where this tool is preferred or any context about filtering plans vs accounts or categories.

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