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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't mention permissions needed, rate limits, whether the data is real-time or cached, or what happens on errors. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return value looks like (e.g., numeric balance, currency, timestamp) or address potential complexities like error handling. For a tool with no structured support, more context is needed.

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 100%, with the parameter 'accountId' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline score when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'current balance for a specific account', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_accounts' or 'get_account_snapshots', which might also provide balance-related information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_accounts' and 'get_account_snapshots' that might offer similar or overlapping functionality, there's no indication of when this specific balance retrieval is preferred, leaving usage unclear.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what format the data returns in, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'all financial accounts' means (e.g., types, fields returned), how the data is structured, or any behavioral aspects like pagination or errors. For a tool with no structured metadata, this leaves too many gaps.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the input requirements. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. Baseline 4 is correct for zero-parameter tools.

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 ('Get') and resource ('all financial accounts from Monarch Money'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_account_balance' or 'get_account_snapshots', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_account_balance' or 'get_account_snapshots'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving 'balance history' but doesn't specify whether this includes only end-of-day balances or intraday changes, what timezone is used for dates, whether data is real-time or cached, or any rate limits/authentication requirements. For a historical data tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward data retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in this concise formulation.

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 3-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what data is retrieved but doesn't describe the return format (list of snapshots? time series?), granularity (daily? hourly?), or what fields are included in each snapshot. With no annotations and no output schema, more detail about the response structure would be helpful for agent understanding.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters (accountId, startDate, endDate). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what constitutes a 'balance history' entry, whether dates are inclusive, or what happens when dates are omitted. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'balance history for a specific account over time', making the purpose unambiguous. It specifies the temporal aspect ('over time') which distinguishes it from static balance tools like 'get_account_balance'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other historical tools like 'get_transactions' or 'get_monthly_summary', preventing a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_account_balance' (current balance), 'get_transactions' (detailed activity), and 'get_monthly_summary' (aggregated history), there's no indication of when this balance history tool is preferred. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation implying read-only access, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness, or what happens if no budget data exists. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 communicates the essential purpose without wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and immediately specifies what kind of summary it provides. Every word earns its place in this compact description.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what format the summary returns, whether it includes time periods, or how 'planned vs actual' is calculated. Given the complexity of budget data and absence of both annotations and output schema, more completeness would be helpful.

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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It earns a 4 rather than 5 because while it correctly avoids parameter discussion, it doesn't explicitly note the parameter-free nature which could help the agent.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('current budget summary') with specific content ('planned vs actual spending'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_monthly_summary or get_spending_by_category by focusing on budget planning metrics rather than historical summaries or categorical breakdowns. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, keeping it at a 4 rather than 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_monthly_summary or get_spending_by_category. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or use-case scenarios. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone without explicit direction.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states what the tool does without details on traits like read-only status, rate limits, or response format. It lacks information on whether this is a safe read operation, how data is returned, or any constraints, leaving significant gaps.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It covers the basic purpose but does not address behavioral aspects or usage context, which could be beneficial for an agent in a server with multiple financial tools.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add param semantics, but this is acceptable given the lack of parameters, aligning with the baseline for zero params.

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 ('Get') and resource ('all transaction categories available in Monarch Money'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_spending_by_category' or 'get_transactions', which might involve categories indirectly, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not specify if this is for listing categories before filtering transactions or if other tools like 'search_transactions' might be better for category-related queries, leaving the agent without usage context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states what data is included but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or how data is sourced (e.g., from transactions or accounts). This leaves significant gaps for a financial tool.

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 with zero waste. It front-loads the purpose clearly and uses straightforward language, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., format of summary data), error conditions, or dependencies on other tools like 'get_transactions'. For a financial summary tool with 2 parameters, this lacks necessary context for effective use.

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 100%, with both parameters ('year' and 'month') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying temporal filtering, which is already covered. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get') and the resource ('monthly financial summary') with specific components (income, expenses, savings). It distinguishes from most siblings like 'get_account_balance' or 'get_transactions' by focusing on aggregated monthly data, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_budget_summary' which might overlap.

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 alternatives like 'get_budget_summary' or 'get_spending_by_category'. The description implies usage for monthly summaries but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts with sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states what the tool returns (net worth and breakdown) but doesn't describe whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, provides real-time vs. cached data, includes historical trends, or handles errors. For a financial data tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 perfectly concise at 8 words in a single sentence that front-loads the core functionality. Every word earns its place: 'Get' establishes the action, 'current' specifies timing, 'net worth' identifies the primary metric, and 'assets/liabilities breakdown' adds crucial detail about the return structure. There is zero redundancy or wasted verbiage.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns but doesn't provide enough context about the return format, data freshness, or relationship to sibling tools. For a net worth calculation tool among 10 financial siblings, more guidance would be helpful, but the description meets basic requirements for such a straightforward 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?

The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the input requirements. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing nonexistent parameters. It focuses on the output semantics (net worth and breakdown) which is valuable context given the lack of output 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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current net worth and assets/liabilities breakdown'), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_account_balance' or 'get_portfolio' by focusing on comprehensive net worth calculation rather than specific account balances or investment portfolios. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this over other financial summary tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the 10 sibling tools. It doesn't mention alternatives like 'get_monthly_summary' or 'get_budget_summary', nor does it specify prerequisites, timing considerations, or use case scenarios. The agent must infer usage context solely from the tool name and description without explicit direction.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness, or what happens if date parameters are omitted (since they're optional). The description adds minimal context beyond the basic operation.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. Every word earns its place - 'Get' specifies the action, 'current investment portfolio summary' defines the resource, and 'including holdings and performance' clarifies the return content. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 read-only tool with 2 optional parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool returns. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it doesn't describe the structure of the returned portfolio summary, performance metrics format, or how date filtering works when parameters are omitted. The description is minimally complete but lacks depth for a financial data 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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (startDate and endDate) with their formats. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, nor does it explain how these optional parameters affect the returned portfolio summary. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current investment portfolio summary'), including what information it returns ('holdings and performance'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_account_balance or get_transactions by focusing on portfolio-level data rather than account balances or transaction details.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies this is for portfolio-level data, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose get_portfolio over similar tools like get_net_worth or get_account_snapshots, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to interact with it effectively.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for conciseness.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the spending breakdown includes (e.g., categories, amounts), how results are returned, or any prerequisites, making it inadequate for a tool that likely returns complex financial data without further 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?

The description adds minimal value beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters. It implies date-range filtering ('for a specific time period') but doesn't provide additional context like date format requirements or handling of invalid ranges, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('spending breakdown by category'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'get_budget_summary' or 'get_monthly_summary', which might also provide financial breakdowns, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a 'specific time period' but doesn't clarify if this is for historical analysis, budgeting, or other contexts, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'get_budget_summary' or 'get_transactions' that might serve similar purposes.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves transactions with optional filters but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'recent' means in terms of time frame. The description is too minimal for a tool with filtering capabilities.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration. The structure is front-loaded with the main purpose followed by filtering options.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'recent' means, doesn't mention the 'limit' parameter that appears in the schema, and provides no information about return format, error conditions, or how this differs from 'search_transactions'. The description leaves too many contextual gaps for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions filtering by account, date range, or amount (though 'amount' isn't in the schema), adding minimal value beyond what's in the structured data. It doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide usage examples.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('recent transactions'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_account_balance' or 'get_categories' by focusing on transactions, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_transactions' which appears to be a more comprehensive search 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_transactions' or other sibling tools. It mentions optional filtering capabilities but doesn't specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over others, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Search' implies a read operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a filtered subset of 'get_transactions', what authentication is required, whether there are rate limits, what the return format looks like, or how results are ordered. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in this concise formulation.

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 the complexity of a search operation with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, whether there's pagination, or how the search logic works (exact match, partial match, etc.). For a search tool in a financial context with multiple sibling tools, more contextual information would be helpful.

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 100%, with all four parameters well-documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'description, merchant, or amount' which corresponds to the query and amount parameters, but doesn't provide additional context beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('transactions'), and specifies searchable fields (description, merchant, amount). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_transactions', which appears to be a similar transaction retrieval tool. The description is specific about what can be searched but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_transactions' or other sibling tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone without explicit context about when this search tool is preferable to a simple get operation.

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