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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that 'notifications already imported are skipped,' which aligns with and enriches the idempotent hint. It also explains the write action ('saves') without contradicting annotations. No error or permission details, but the annotation coverage is strong enough that a 4 is warranted.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary action is stated first, followed by key behavioral details (matching and deduplication) and a pointer to the sibling tool. 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?

The tool is moderately complex (parsing, matching, deduplication) but the description covers the essentials. An output schema exists, so return details need not be in the description. It lacks explicit error scenarios or permission requirements, but those are not critical for an agent to call it correctly given the annotations and clear guidance. Slightly incomplete but strong overall.

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% (the messages parameter has a description: 'Notification texts, one per element'). The description adds that it parses text and matches accounts, but does not elaborate on expected text formats or edge cases. Since the schema already documents the parameter type and purpose, the description provides only marginal extra value, keeping it at the baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb ('Parses', 'saves'), a clear resource (bank push notifications → transactions), and distinguishes itself from sibling preview_notifications by mentioning it explicitly. It also clarifies the account matching logic and deduplication, which separates it from other transaction tools.

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?

It provides explicit guidance: 'Use preview_notifications to see the parse without saving.' This tells the agent when to choose the alternative and implies when this tool is appropriate (when saving is desired). The matching and skip behavior further define usage context.

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