get_transactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get transactions' without mentioning ordering, pagination, result limits, or whether it returns only summary or full transaction details. The schema mentions a default limit of 100, but the description itself adds no behavioral context.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and the most notable capability, making it easy to scan. For a simple retrieval tool, this is appropriately concise.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too thin to be complete. It lacks guidance on when to use this over 'search_transactions', what the response looks like, and how parameters like limit and account_id behave. An agent would need to infer too much.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description's mention of 'date range filtering' aligns with start_date and end_date but does not add meaning beyond that, and it remains silent on limit and account_id. The parameter semantics are adequate because the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('Get transactions') and highlights a key feature (optional date range filtering). However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'search_transactions', so an agent cannot tell which one is more appropriate without opening the sibling schema.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_transactions' or 'get_account_details'. It only mentions optional date range filtering, giving no context about use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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