list_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral transparency. It discloses the sorting behavior (largest absolute value first), which is useful. However, it omits details like pagination defaults, date handling, or response format, leaving some ambiguity for a tool with no 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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the action and resource, and the second sentence adds a practical use case. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given five optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a clear overview and sorting behavior but lacks details on pagination limits, date boundary semantics, and error cases. It is adequate for a simple list tool but not fully comprehensive.

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?

While the schema covers all parameters (100% coverage), the description introduces transaction types (fees, transfers) not listed in the schema's 'type' description (withdrawal, deposit, interest, tax_refund, other_gains). This inconsistency could mislead agents into selecting invalid filter values, reducing clarity beyond the 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('cash transactions') with examples, making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes from siblings like list_accounts or get_cash_flow_summary by focusing on raw transaction listing.

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 implies a usage scenario ('top rows answer what did I spend most money on?') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The guidance is indirect rather than explicit.

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