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

Annotations already declare a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description reinforces this with 'writes nothing'. It also discloses the return shape (ranked Categories with confidence and rationale), which adds useful context beyond the 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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the result and next step. No wasted text.

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?

A read-only, output-schema-backed tool with two fully documented parameters. The description covers purpose, non-mutation, return content, and follow-up actions, leaving nothing critical for an agent to infer.

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 coverage is 100%, so both required parameters (transactionId, companyId) are already documented by the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond that, which meets the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 (recommend), resource (bookkeeping Category for a transaction), and mechanism (platform classifier agent). It is clearly distinguishable from transaction_assign_transaction_category, which it names as the applying step.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent what to do with the output: apply one suggestion with transaction_assign_transaction_category, or use transaction_batch_assign_transaction_category for multiple transactions. Both alternatives and their selection conditions are named.

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