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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by stating the key non-destructive behavior ('without saving anything') and providing context about supported banks (Kaspi, Halyk, etc.) and language (Russian), which goes beyond what annotations convey. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core action (parses notifications), the scope (banks), and the critical distinction (without saving). Every clause carries meaning, and there is no redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description sufficiently covers the purpose, supported banks, language, and the preview nature. It implicitly signals the relationship to import_notifications, though an explicit 'use this before importing' would make it fully complete. Overall, enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the 'messages' parameter ('Notification texts, one per element'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond confirming the input type, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not exceed it.

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 states the tool's function: it parses bank push notification texts and shows the transactions that import_notifications would create, without saving. This is a specific verb+resource with explicit mention of the sibling tool it contrasts with (import_notifications), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 the usage context: use this tool to preview the effects of import_notifications before actually importing, since it explicitly says 'without saving anything' and references what import_notifications would create. However, it doesn't explicitly state exclusions or alternative conditions, leaving some inference to the agent.

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