list_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'List transactions', which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, result limits, or whether it returns all transactions in the range. The description is too sparse to be transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core function without any wasted words. It is concise and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 list tool with two parameters and no output schema. The description states the primary function but lacks context about return format, sorting, pagination, or potential constraints. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is merely adequate, not complete.

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 documents both parameters with clear descriptions (start/end date in YYYY-MM-DD). The description adds only 'date range', which is essentially the same meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the description provides no significant additional parameter semantics.

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 'List transactions by date range' clearly states the action (list), the resource (transactions), and a specific scope (by date range). It is specific and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'query_transaction', which likely handles individual lookups.

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 usage—when you need transactions within a date range—but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'query_transaction'. It does not mention exclusions or when not to use it.

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