Search transactions

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds that results are sorted newest-first and paginated. It does not disclose potential rate limits or data volume implications, but the read-only nature is well conveyed.

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?

Two sentences pack the main function, analogy, use cases, filters, and result ordering without excess. Every phrase serves a purpose.

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 description covers purpose, filters, and output ordering. Lacking explicit output fields (no output schema), but the result behavior (newest-first, paginated) is enough for a search tool. Additional info on pagination metadata would improve completeness.

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% with parameter descriptions. The description adds practical context beyond schema, such as how to find fund_id ('discover via whoami or list_funds') and examples for financial_year format, ticker, and transaction_type.

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 the transaction ledger across all holdings, with specific use cases ('did we already record this dividend?') and filter options. It distinguishes from sibling list tools by emphasizing search and duplicate-checking.

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 explicit usage scenarios (checking duplicates, looking up past transactions) and implies context (before proposing a new record). It lacks explicit 'when not to use' but is sufficiently clear.

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