ghl_saas_list_location_wallet_transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, and openWorld=true. The description adds meaningful non-annotation context: the HTTP endpoint and version, agency-level token requirement, OAuth scope, and supported filtering modes. The POST endpoint is not a contradiction because readOnlyHint describes side-effect behavior, not HTTP method.

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 front-loaded and organized in short lines: purpose, capabilities, endpoint, auth, and scopes. There is some redundancy between the opening line and the title, but overall it is efficient and scannable.

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 paginated list tool with nested body filters, the description covers purpose, endpoint, auth requirements, and filter capabilities. It does not describe the response shape, but with no output schema and a clear list operation, the remaining gap is minor.

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 parameter meaning is already fully documented in the schema. The description summarizes supported features such as skip/limit pagination, date-range and charge-type filters, timezone normalization, and additional filters, but adds little beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 location wallet transactions. It explicitly scopes the operation to a sub-account/location, which distinguishes it from the sibling agency-level wallet transaction tool. The first line alone lets an agent identify the tool without opening the schema.

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?

Provides clear usage context: sub-account scope, required Agency token, and OAuth scope. It does not explicitly name when to use this versus the agency-level wallet transactions tool, nor does it state exclusion conditions, but the location scoping is clear enough to guide selection.

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