get_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or the format of returned data (e.g., list of transactions with details). For a data-fetching tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: a single sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence ('Get MLB transactions for a specific date or recent transactions') contributes essential information, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 tool's complexity (data retrieval with one parameter), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., transaction types, fields), error cases, or behavioral nuances like how 'recent' is defined. For a tool that likely returns structured data, more context is needed to ensure the agent can use it effectively.

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?

The input schema has one parameter ('date_str') with 0% description coverage, and the description adds minimal semantic context: it mentions 'specific date or recent transactions,' hinting that 'date_str' is optional for recent data. However, it doesn't specify the date format (e.g., YYYY-MM-DD), what 'recent' means (e.g., last 7 days), or default behavior when null. With low schema coverage, the description fails to adequately compensate, leaving key parameter details unclear.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get MLB transactions for a specific date or recent transactions.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('MLB transactions'), and scope ('specific date or recent'), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_injuries' or 'get_team_roster', which might also involve transaction-related data, so it lacks 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?

The description provides minimal guidance: it implies usage for retrieving transactions by date or recent ones, but offers no explicit when-to-use rules, exclusions, or alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for daily updates vs. historical lookups or how it compares to other tools like 'get_player_profile' for player movements. This leaves the agent with little context for optimal tool selection.

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