Get Transactions

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds the pagination envelope (total/count/offset/hasMore), ordering, and player-name resolution, none of which is visible in annotations or schema. No contradiction with the annotations.

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 carry all the meaningful behavioral information with no filler. The core act is front-loaded and the pagination warning is placed immediately where the agent will need it.

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 paginated list tool with 100% schema coverage, full annotations, and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to select and call it correctly. It even preempts the common failure mode of expecting all records in one response.

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 schema already explains limit, offset, sport, season, and league_id. The description reinforces that limit/offset are necessary for paging, but adds no new parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Executed transactions') with categories (adds, drops, trades, lineup moves, draft picks), a defined ordering (most recent first), and a transformation trait (items resolved to player names). The qualifier 'executed' distinguishes it from the sibling get_pending without needing to open that tool.

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?

Gives explicit operational guidance: it is paginated and limit/offset should be used because a season's draft alone can be 100+ records. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative such as get_pending for pending/unprocessed transactions, so the when-not-to-use guidance is implied rather than direct.

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