get_transactions

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

While annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true (safe read), the description does not add any behavioral details beyond the obvious. It omits information about pagination, data format, or potential limits.

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 one sentence and concise, but it is too minimal for the complexity of 13 parameters. It is front-loaded but lacks useful structure or breakdown.

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 has 13 optional parameters and no output schema, the description does not provide enough context about typical usage, required constraints (e.g., date range), or how filtering works. The agent might miss important behaviors like pagination defaults.

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 0%, and the description only says 'optional filters' without explaining any of the 13 parameters. The agent receives no additional meaning over parameter names, some of which (e.g., debit_as_negative, is_group) are not self-explanatory.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'Lunch Money transactions', and mentions optional filters. It is unambiguous and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_transaction or update_transaction by its name and verb.

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 (e.g., create_transaction for adding, update_transaction for modifying). The agent must infer from context or tool names.

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