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

Annotations only mark this as non-read-only and non-destructive, but the description discloses meaningful behavior: it is atomic, it restores soft-deleted entries rather than duplicating them, it only creates a fresh entry when none existed, and it is idempotent on retry. This is exactly the kind of side-effect information an agent needs beyond structured fields.

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?

Three sentences deliver the purpose, the core behavioral guarantee, and retry safety without repetition or fluff. The most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter invocation with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what happens to existing entries, when a new entry is created, and retry semantics. An agent has enough information to decide whether to call it and to predict the outcome of doing so.

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?

There is only one parameter, ids, and the schema already covers it completely with a description. The tool description adds context about the bulk/atomic nature but not new detail about the parameter itself. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Include (un-ignore) many bank transactions in one atomic call.' It further clarifies by naming its relationship to exclusion and explaining the intended effect on transactions. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from the broad sibling list.

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 clearly communicates that this tool is for including previously excluded transactions and that it is the inverse of excluding them. It also explains safe-to-retry behavior, which gives the agent practical usage context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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