Get transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the product filter is applied post-fetch via item_name (a case-insensitive contains match), and fetch_all walks every page at a cost of one request per 100 transactions. This goes beyond what annotations provide and clarifies non-obvious behavior.

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?

Three sentences with no waste. The purpose is front-loaded, the key workaround is explained succinctly, and the fetch_all guidance is placed last. Every sentence earns its place, and the description is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 8 optional parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the main behavioral nuances: the product filter workaround and the fetch_all cost. It does not delve into error handling or edge cases, but those are typically not required. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly, though it could mention what data fields are returned.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining how item_name and fetch_all interact with the endpoint (no native product filter, and pagination behavior), which the parameter descriptions alone do not convey. It enriches understanding without redundancy.

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 retrieves transactions from a ThriveCart account, with optional date and product-name filtering. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_accounts or get_product, and the specific resource (transactions) is 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 gives a concrete usage guideline for the fetch_all parameter ('only when you need complete figures'), but does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives such as refund_transaction or get_revenue_summary. The use case is implied by the purpose, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings.

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