get-transactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the meaningful scoping behavior (omitting accountId queries all accounts), but it says nothing about pagination, default limits, ordering, or return shape for a read operation returning transaction lists.

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?

A single tight sentence with the scope rule front-loaded and no wasted words. Efficient, though its brevity works against the completeness dimensions rather than helping them.

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?

For an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is thin. The one sentence covers account scoping but leaves filtering semantics, defaults, and result behavior unspecified, which is inadequate given the tool's complexity.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. Only accountId's semantics (omitted = all accounts) are explained; limit, startDate, endDate, minAmount, maxAmount, payeeName, and categoryName are left entirely undocumented in both description and schema.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (transactions) plus a scope modifier, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not distinguish itself from the analytical siblings (spending-by-category, monthly-summary, cash-flow), so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives one useful conditional rule ('across all accounts if accountId is omitted'), which is implied usage guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this raw-list tool over aggregate siblings like spending-by-category or category-trends, leaving the main routing decision to inference.

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