Get Transactions

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the return fields and optional-filter behavior, but it does not disclose additional traits such as ordering, date inclusivity, pagination defaults beyond schema, or any rate/implicit limits. With annotations doing most of the work, a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary action and return fields are in the first sentence, and the crucial sibling-routing guidance is in the second. Every clause earns its place, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

For a read-only list tool with no required parameters parti, the schema handles parameter semantics fully. Annotations handle safety and idempotency. The description fills the remaining gap by naming the key returned fields and by pointing to the correct sibling for a common alternative use case. No critical information an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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 input schema already documents all nine parameters including defaults, formats, and enums. The description adds only the general statement 'optional filters' and names three return fields, which is useful but not necessary for parameter understanding. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without exceeding it.

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 a specific verb-resource pair ('Get transactions') and notes the optional filtering behavior. It also distinguishes itself from a nearby sibling by directing currency-split income queries elsewhere. This is more specific than many sibling tools and leaves little ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly identifies when to prefer an alternative tool: 'For currency-split income totals prefer get_income_by_currency.' This functions as a when-not-to-use condition for the primary shared scenario, giving the agent clear routing guidance beyond mere capability listing.

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