get_transactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal key behaviors: it returns deposits and withdrawals only, ordered newest first, and is evidently a read operation by tone. It does not mention the limit default of 5, pagination/truncation, or whether only settled transactions appear, which are meaningful behavioral gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

A single 12-word sentence that is front-loaded with the main verb, resource, and ordering. Every word earns its place and no irrelevant details are included.

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 simple two-parameter tool and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential retrieval intent, scope, and ordering. It does not explain the limit parameter or any possible restrictions, but the tool is simple enough that an agent can reasonably call it with customer_id alone.

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 for both parameters. It implies that customer_id identifies whose transactions appear, but it never names the parameter or explains that limit restricts how many transactions are returned. The 'newest first' phrase weakly signals count-limiting, but the description does not define either parameter's semantics with certainty.

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?

States a specific resource (customer transactions) and the exact scope (deposits and withdrawals) with ordering (newest first). This clearly distinguishes get_transactions from siblings like get_customer, list_tickets, and create_ticket without needing to open schemas.

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 usage context is implied: use this when you need a customer's most recent deposits and withdrawals. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative tool fits other transaction-related needs, leaving the agent to infer boundaries from sibling tool names.

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