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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is covered by structured data. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by explaining the limitation that secure splits are read-only here and must be opened in a browser, which is behavioral behavior not disclosed by annotations alone.

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 carry complete information with zero waste. The first sentence states the action and its scope; the second covers the exclusion and alternative. Every clause 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?

With a destructive action, accurate annotations (destructiveHint=true), full schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description covers the essential behavioral boundary (secure vs. simple splits) that the schema cannot express. It's complete enough for this moderately complex tool.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters (split and entry_id), with the split parameter even documenting the acceptable key-or-URL form. The description itself doesn't add parameter detail beyond the schema, but with full coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description implies the entry_id relates to removal but adds no additional meaning.

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+resource ('Remove an expense or payment') and clearly distinguishes its scope from siblings by explicitly noting it only works on simple, accountless splits and that secure splits are read-only here. This differentiates it well from update_entry, which would modify rather than delete.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (simple, accountless splits) and when NOT to use it (secure splits created by signed-in users), with an alternative action (open in a browser). This is strong exclusion guidance that directly aids tool selection.

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