List Transactions

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 the output as a 'detailed list' and date format requirements, but omits important traits such as pagination behavior (page, page_size parameters exist but not explained), sorting, result limits, or any side effects (though likely read-only). This leaves significant behavioral uncertainty.

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, front-loading the purpose and types of transactions. It is concise and avoids unnecessary words, while still conveying key constraints like required date range and optional filters. Some additional context (e.g., pagination) could be added without harming 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 tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers core purpose and required parameters but lacks details on pagination, output structure, and differentiation from similar tools. It is minimally adequate but incomplete for complex usage scenarios.

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 coverage is 100% (all 7 parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting that date range is required and providing ISO 8601 examples. It also lists optional filters by name. However, it does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, such as details on operation_type or posting_number.

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 lists financial transactions and enumerates types (sales accruals, commissions, etc.). It specifies the verb 'Get a detailed list' and the resource 'financial transactions', making the purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_finance_report or get_transactions_totals, which may have overlapping functionality.

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 indicates that date range filtering is required and optional filters are available, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_finance_report for aggregated totals). No exclusion criteria or usage conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent without decision support for tool selection.

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