list_transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable context: 'Returns transactions across all connected accounts (Plaid + Wise) for the authenticated Luni user.' It also specifies personal vs. business scope. However, it does not mention return format or pagination, which would be helpful since no output schema exists.

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 concise at three sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, usage context, and exclusion/alternatives. No wasted words, front-loaded with the key action.

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 complexity (7 optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, scope, and alternatives. It lacks mention of return format or pagination, but the schema documents parameters well. For a tool with read-only annotations and clear sibling differentiation, it is largely complete.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter having a clear description. The tool description does not add further meaning to the parameters beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does 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 explicitly states 'List the user's personal Luni transactions' with a clear verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by saying 'For business-entity spending, call get_pnl or get_cash_flow instead.'

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this whenever the user asks about their own spending, recent purchases, a specific merchant, or a category total.' It also gives clear when-not-to-use and alternatives for business spending.

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