get_transactions

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 mentions the tool retrieves transactions but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, what the return format looks like (e.g., list of objects with fields), pagination behavior beyond limit/offset, error conditions, or rate limits. The description is minimally functional but leaves the agent guessing about important operational aspects.

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 perfectly structured and concise: a clear purpose statement followed by a well-organized parameter list with brief but complete explanations. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or vague language. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose immediately stated.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It excels at parameter documentation but lacks critical context about return values, authentication requirements, error handling, and differentiation from sibling tools. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally describe what the tool returns, but it doesn't, leaving a significant gap for agent understanding.

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 description provides excellent parameter semantics that fully compensate for the 0% schema description coverage. For all 5 parameters, it explains their purpose (e.g., 'limit: Number of transactions to retrieve'), provides format details (e.g., 'YYYY-MM-DD format'), and indicates defaults. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, which only lists titles without explanations.

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 as 'Get transactions from Monarch Money' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('transactions'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'get_cashflow' or 'get_accounts' that might also retrieve financial data, preventing a perfect score.

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 'get_cashflow' or 'get_accounts' from the sibling list. It also doesn't mention prerequisites such as authentication status, which is relevant given the 'setup_authentication' and 'check_auth_status' siblings. The parameter documentation implies usage for filtering transactions but offers no strategic context.

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