get_star_transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read behavior is known. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as pagination behavior, ordering, or what constitutes a transaction. It does not contradict annotations, but it provides no extra value.

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 with zero wasted words. It directly states the tool's purpose and nothing more, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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, but the description is too terse to be fully complete. It does not define what a 'transaction' entails, whether the result is a list, or how pagination works, despite having no output schema to clarify return values. The lack of context about related star tools also reduces completeness.

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 schema has two parameters (limit and offset) with 0% description coverage in the input schema. The description does not mention or explain these parameters, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names alone. With low schema coverage, the description needed to compensate but did not.

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 'Get the bot's Telegram Star transactions' clearly identifies the action (get) and the resource (bot's Telegram Star transactions). It is specific enough to distinguish from the sibling get_my_star_balance (which gets balance, not transactions), though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus related star management tools like get_my_star_balance or get_business_account_star_balance. The description gives no context for selecting this over alternatives, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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