fio_get_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two meaningful behavioral traits: throttling (1 req/30s) and a prerequisite on 90-day-old data. It omits error/retry behaviour, pagination, and token-failure handling, so it is good but not exhaustive for a no-annotation 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?

Front-loaded purpose, then a scannable bulleted enumeration of returned fields, then two short constraint lines. No filler sentences; every line either frames the call or warns of an operational limit.

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?

There is no output schema, so the bulleted list of returned fields (IDs, amounts, counter account, payment symbols) is genuinely necessary and provided. Rate limit and the 90-day unlock prerequisite round it out; only pagination/volume behaviour and error semantics are left implicit.

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 all three parameters (token, dateFrom, dateTo) are documented in the schema with formats. The description only restates the date-range concept and adds nothing about accepted range size, date boundary inclusivity, or token fallback, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get account transactions') plus the source system (FIO Bank) and the scoping dimension (date range). No siblings exist to disambiguate against, and the tool's identity is unambiguous from the first sentence.

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 real operational guidance: a 1-request-per-30-second rate limit and the requirement to unlock data older than 90 days in internet banking. There are no sibling tools, so no alternative-routing is possible or expected, but it stops short of stating what to do when the date range is refused.

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