List / find transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by mentioning cursor pagination, which is key behavioral context beyond annotations. It does not detail order or limitations, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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 very short (two sentences) with no filler. The first sentence immediately states purpose and key filters, enabling quick comprehension. Structure is optimal for agent consumption.

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 lack of output schema and 7 optional parameters, the description covers essential filter dimensions and pagination. It does not specify default ordering, exact date format, or limit behavior, but the core context for a list operation is present. The rich annotations compensate for missing behavioral details.

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 71%, so parameters are mostly documented. The description adds meaning by grouping parameters (e.g., 'date range' for startDate/endDate) and clarifying 'document group' for documentGroupId, which lacks a schema description. However, 'limit' is not mentioned in description, and no new semantic nuance beyond schema is provided.

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 searches transactions by specific filters (status, external ID, document group, date range) and indicates it uses cursor pagination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_transaction (single transaction) and list_signing_sessions (different entity).

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 explicitly says 'Use this to find a transaction or check signing history,' providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly exclude misuse cases (e.g., for fetching a single transaction by ID), but the purpose is well-aligned with typical list operations.

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