list_transactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does usefully disclose that completed, authorized, and declined transactions are included, but it omits other behavioral details such as pagination, sorting, timezone handling implications, or whether the operation has any side effects.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the additional status detail is concise and relevant.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter listing tool with no output schema, and the description covers the main behavior and returned status categories. Some details like pagination limits or result ordering are absent, but the description is adequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in common cases.

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 baseline is 3. The description's reference to 'a given date' aligns with the Date parameter but adds no additional semantic detail beyond the included YYYY-MM-DD format and timezone explanation already present in 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?

The description states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('transactions'), and a precise scope ('for a given date'). It also names the returned status types, which helps distinguish this tool from transaction-action siblings like void_payment, refund_payment, or get_transaction.

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 a date-based listing use case, which is clear enough for choosing this tool over the mutation-focused siblings. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives such as get_transaction for retrieving a single transaction.

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