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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond annotations: it enumerates the return columns, lists possible status values (active, paused, archived), and discloses the sort order ('Soonest first'). It stops short of covering pagination or matching quirks, but the main behavior is transparent.

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?

A single, tightly packed sentence front-loads the verb and resource, then efficiently lists fields, statuses, and ordering. There is no filler or repetition of the title.

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 simple read-only list tool with one well-documented optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: returned fields, status vocabulary, and result ordering. The safety profile is already carried by annotations, so nothing critical is missing.

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, householdId, and the schema already describes it fully, including the special case where it may be omitted. The description does not add anything about parameters, which is acceptable given 100% schema coverage — the baseline of 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource ('recurring transactions') and specifies the returned fields: name, amount, frequency, next run date, and status. It also gives concrete examples (subscriptions, rent, salary), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from plain list_transactions.

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 implies usage for recurring vs. one-off transactions through examples and the resource name, but it never states when to choose this over siblings like list_transactions or list_recurrence_suggestions, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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