transactions_list

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses that the endpoint can return 5xx errors on large datasets and that refunds appear as negative amounts. It also provides a link to the full spec, enabling detailed behavioral understanding. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and key usage notes. It includes a spec link for further details. While slightly verbose due to the `text` search documentation, it remains focused and every sentence adds essential information.

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 high parameter count (19) and no output schema, the description covers the tool's overall purpose, error behavior, and search capabilities. It lacks explicit details about pagination, response structure, or expected output fields, but the spec link partially compensates. Overall, it is reasonably complete for effective use.

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 58%, so the description adds value for under-documented parameters. It elaborates on `text` (search across identifiers), `hosting` (enum casing), `cloudComplianceBoundaries` (applies only to cloud-hosted apps). However, many other parameters like `limit`, `offset`, and `sortBy` are left to the schema and not enriched in the description.

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 action ('List sales transactions') and the specific resource ('for this vendor's apps'). It also notes that refunds appear as inline negative amounts, providing precise semantic context. It distinguishes this tool from the sibling `transactions_export_async_*` tools for large data pulls.

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?

Explicitly advises against using this tool for large datasets and directs the agent to prefer `transactions_export_async_start` + `status` + `download`. Also explains that the `text` parameter can search by multiple identifiers, giving clear when-to-use guidance.

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