borderou_transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what the records represent (imported bank statement transactions with matching status, amounts, and linked invoice/proforma references), which is genuine value beyond annotations, but it says nothing about ordering, page-size limits, or total counts.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by what the records contain. Nothing is redundant, though the second sentence could be tightened into the first.

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?

With no output schema, the description responsibly covers the returned record shape (status, amounts, linked invoice/proforma references). Combined with full schema parameter docs and read-only annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only ordering/result-size behavior is left unstated.

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 100% for all three parameters (page, limit, companyId), so the schema carries the semantics. 'With pagination' in the description only loosely corroborates page/limit and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 verb+resource ('List borderou transactions') and clarifies these are imported bank statement transactions, which distinguishes it from the singular borderou_transaction_get. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the resource noun and 'List ... with pagination' make the collection-vs-single split reasonably obvious.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus borderou_transaction_get, borderou_transaction_update, or borderou_transactions_rematch. The only usage-adjacent hint is 'with pagination', which implies a paged listing but says nothing about prerequisites or alternatives.

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