borderou_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It mentions the returned data characteristics (matching status, amounts, linked invoice/proforma references) and pagination behavior, which is useful. However, it doesn't describe the response format, whether results are sorted, or any filtering behavior beyond pagination.

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 a single concise sentence with a useful second sentence about returned data. There's no wasted text and the key purpose is front-loaded (lists + pagination first). It could arguably add a bit more but remains efficient.

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 that this is a list operation with three well-documented parameters, the description is reasonably adequate. There's no output schema, so describing the return type is helpful and partially done (matching status, amounts, linked references). However, it doesn't cover whether items are ordered by date, how many results to expect, or whether pagination is cursor- or offset-based.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (page, limit, companyId). The description adds that companyId overrides the active company, but this is already in the schema. The description's mention of 'matching status' implies some filtering but doesn't clarify how status filtering works or which parameters control it, since none of the three params relate to status.

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 it lists borderou transactions with pagination, and specifies the returned data includes imported bank statement transactions with matching status, amounts, and linked invoice/proforma references. It distinguishes itself from siblings like borderou_transaction_get (singular fetch) and borderou_transactions_save/rematch (operations), though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 implies this is a list/listing operation for borderou transactions, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It doesn't name sibling tools like borderou_transactions_rematch or borderou_transaction_available_invoices, nor does it explain when pagination is needed or what the default behavior covers.

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