get_transactions

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

The description implies a read-only operation by listing filter parameters but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive. Since no annotations are provided, the description should carry the burden of behavioral transparency; it partially does by describing all inputs but fails to mention any side effects or constraints like rate limits or data freshness.

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 relatively long but well-structured with a clear sentence followed by a bulleted parameter list. However, it could be more concise by grouping similar boolean filters (e.g., 'Filter transactions by attributes: attachments, notes, etc.') instead of repeating 'Filter transactions' for each.

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 16 parameters and a known output schema, the description is very complete for input semantics. It explains all filters, defaults (limit=100, offset=0), and interdependencies. It does not elaborate on return values, but that is acceptable given the existing output schema. Minor gap: no mention of pagination limits beyond defaults.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the tool description provides thorough explanations for all 16 parameters, including dependencies (e.g., 'start_date requires end_date') and conflicts (e.g., cannot use account_id with account_ids). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw input schema.

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 'Get transactions from Monarch Money', providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_transaction_details or get_transactions_summary, which could cause confusion about which tool to use for detailed vs. summary vs. list views.

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 siblings or alternatives. The description focuses solely on parameter details without mentioning any usage context, such as pagination best practices or when to prefer this over other transaction-related tools.

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