ghl_saas_list_agency_wallet_transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, but the description adds real signal: the prerequisite token type, the OAuth scope, the concrete endpoint and API version, and that pagination/filtering happens in a request body. Worth noting it correctly frames the POST endpoint as a fetch, matching readOnlyHint rather than contradicting it. It does not disclose rate limits or result-set size limits beyond what the schema states.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in the first two lines, then layers endpoint, auth, and scopes as short scannable metadata lines — no filler prose. The endpoint/version/source line is slightly operational rather than task-oriented but still earns its place for an agent constructing the call.

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 nested-body list tool with no output schema, the description covers auth, scope, pagination, filtering, timezone normalization, and the exact route, which is most of what an agent needs. It omits any indication of the response shape (e.g. whether totals or a cursor are returned alongside the records), which is the one gap given there is no output schema.

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% and each parameter (skip, limit, filters, timezone, additionalFilter) is documented in the schema, so the description's recap of 'skip/limit pagination', 'date-range and charge-type filters' adds little beyond it. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting; the only marginal addition is the 'non-indexed' characterization of additionalFilter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'List agency wallet transactions' / 'Fetch paginated wallet transactions for an agency (company)' — and the agency/company scoping implicitly separates it from the location-level wallet-transactions sibling. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation requires the agent to notice the word 'agency'.

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?

Gives clear invocation context: an Agency (company-level) token is required and the saas/company.read scope must be granted, which tells the agent when it will succeed. It does not state exclusions or point to ghl_saas_list_location_wallet_transactions as the alternative for location-scoped data, so the agent must infer that split.

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