list_transactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is to list transactions, which implies a read-only operation, but does not explain pagination, ordering, or how filters are combined. However, it is not misleading, so a middle score is appropriate.

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 wasted words. It efficiently states the tool's purpose and indicates optionality of filters.

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?

Despite having 9 parameters and no annotations, the description is extremely sparse. It omits key context like pagination parameters (limit/offset), filter interaction semantics, and any mention of the output schema or default behavior.

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. It mentions high-level filter categories but does not name any of the 9 parameters, clarify unit semantics (e.g., pence), or distinguish between exact and contains matching for counterparty.

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 lists transactions with optional filters for month, account, counterparty, and amount. This specific verb and resource distinguish it from sibling tools like list_accounts or run_readonly_sql.

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 implies usage for listing transactions but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or when another tool would be more appropriate.

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