Get Transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: results are returned newest-first and amounts use debit-positive/credit-negative signs — exactly the kind of domain detail an agent cannot get from annotations or schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and ordering, with the amount convention packaged compactly. Nothing is wasted and no filler.

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?

With an output schema and rich annotations present, the description does not need to explain return shape or safety. It covers ordering and amount signs well, but leaves a small gap around sibling selection and default-limit behavior, so it is not fully complete for a 7-parameter retrieval tool.

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 86%, so parameters like text, company, date ranges and BAS account range are already documented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g. how text matching works or whether limit truncates silently), so baseline 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 resource ('Ledger transactions (verifikationsrader)') with an ordering guarantee ('newest first'), plus the amount sign convention. However it never distinguishes this from close siblings like get_voucher, get_accounts, or get_financial_report, so an agent must infer why to pick this one.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-use guidance, and no named alternative. The description implies this is a listing tool for ledger entries, but nothing tells the agent whether to reach for get_transactions, get_voucher, or get_bank_balances for a given question.

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