List cash transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is clear. The description adds behavioral details: 'newest-first', paginated, signed amounts (+/-), and currency (AUD). These go beyond the annotations and provide helpful context without contradiction.

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?

Four sentences, all essential: purpose, filters, usage, and behavioral note. No fluff. Front-loaded with the key verb and resource. Every sentence earns its place.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, filters, ordering, and signed amounts. It lacks details like pagination metadata in response, but schema handles page/per_page. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 100%, so all parameters have descriptions. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, except for mentioning ordering ('newest-first') which is not in parameters. Baseline is 3, and the description meets that without substantial improvement.

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 cash-ledger movements on a bank account, specifying types (deposits, withdrawals, etc.) and ordering (newest-first, paginated). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like record_cash_transaction or update_cash_transaction, which are mutation operations.

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 provides clear usage contexts: 'review cash flow, check whether a movement was already recorded, or find uncategorised/unmatched items.' It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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