search_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Search transactions with filters' and mentions the accountId requirement. It does not state that the operation is read-only, describe return types, or mention any side effects. The schema provides some parameter behavior (like date conversion), but the description itself adds little beyond the tool's name.

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, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and the most critical prerequisite. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy.

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 tool with 8 parameters but a fully detailed schema, the description plus schema is sufficient. The description covers the key dependency (get_accounts) and the nature of the operation (search with filters). It does not explicitly describe return values, but the tool name and sibling 'get_transaction' make the list-returning behavior inferable. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, with detailed explanations for each parameter (e.g., date formats, client-side search). The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states; the accountId requirement is also already present in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Search') and resource ('transactions'), with an explicit mention of filters. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'get_transaction', which likely retrieves a single transaction, and positions it as a search/list 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?

The description provides a concrete prerequisite: use get_accounts first to obtain the required accountId. This gives clear usage context, though it does not explicitly discuss when to prefer this tool over siblings like 'spending_by_category' or 'get_transaction'.

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