List transactions

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and possible incompleteness. The description adds value by specifying that the tool surfaces failed or refunded charges, which is behavioral detail beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 zero clutter. The purpose and use case are front-loaded, making the description immediately actionable.

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?

Without an output schema, the description does not explain the return format or fields. It also omits details about how contactId filters results and the default behavior of locationId (which is in the schema). The description is adequate for a basic list operation but lacks important operational context.

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 only 25% (only locationId has a description). The description does not mention limit, offset, or contactId, or their purpose. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving contactId and the pagination semantics unexplained.

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 the action (list), the resource (payment transactions), and the scope (for a location). It adds specific use cases: reconciling revenue and spotting failed or refunded charges. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like invoices or orders, as 'payment transactions' is a distinct concept.

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 provides a clear context for when to use this tool (reconciling revenue, spotting failed/refunded charges). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the stated use cases give sufficient direction for an agent to select it over other list tools.

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