list_pending_groups

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions 'pending' and 'grouped by counterparty'. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, how grouping is defined, what happens with the month parameter, or how pagination works via limit. The minimal description leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose. While it could be expanded with more detail without becoming verbose, the current structure is concise.

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?

The tool has three optional parameters, no parameter descriptions, no annotations, and relies on an output schema. The description fails to explain parameter semantics, the meaning of 'pending', grouping behavior, or defaults. This is under-specified for a tool with multiple configuration options, even though the output schema covers return values.

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%, so the description must compensate. However, the description does not mention any of the three parameters (limit, month, account_group). It provides no meaning for these parameters beyond what the schema's default values imply. The agent receives no explanation of how 'month' filters or how 'account_group' interacts with 'pending'.

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 function: 'List pending transactions grouped by counterparty.' It includes a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('pending transactions'), and a grouping dimension. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_transactions or run_readonly_sql, which could also list transactions.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or context where list_pending_groups is preferred over list_transactions or run_readonly_sql. It merely restates the function without usage direction.

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