list_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses ordering (createdAt descending), result cap (up to 50), and empty-array behavior when no filters match. It does not precisely define 'recent' (time window) or mention pagination/rate limits, but these are minor for a read-only list 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose ('List recent FinPay transactions'), followed by concrete behavioral details. Every sentence contributes distinct information with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool is simple (3 optional params, no output schema). The description covers the main operational aspects: return type, filters, limit, ordering, and empty result. It doesn't describe the transaction object shape, but that is likely covered by get_transaction and is not essential for a list tool.

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?

The input schema already describes all three parameters with examples, enum values, and default limits (100% coverage). The description adds the 'and/or' combinability of status and hubId, and ties the limit parameter to the 50-item cap, providing semantic value beyond the schema's individual property descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('FinPay transactions'), along with scope ('recent', up to 50, filters). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_transaction (singular) and list_payment_hubs (different resource), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 conveys it is the tool for querying a set of transactions with optional status/hubId filters, and clarifies the 50-limit constraint. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the plural 'List' and filter options imply the intended use vs. singular get_transaction. Clear context but no explicit exclusions.

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