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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden: it explains rulesEnabled (auto-links matching transactions), rulesCleanup (removes links that stop matching), the per-line allocation logic (first line by position whose categories contain the transaction, unmatched as 'other'), and owner-only AI fields. Rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and then elaborates on return fields. The text is dense but every clause conveys needed information about return structure; it could be split into bullet-like segments for readability but remains front-loaded and purposeful.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values, and it does so comprehensively: tracker name, limit amount, status, date range, rule categories and tags, rulesEnabled, rulesCleanup, lines structure, and AI tracking fields. Complete for correct invocation.

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 single parameter status has 100% schema coverage including enum values and default. The description merely repeats the enum values ('active, archived, closed') without adding new semantic detail, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema already documents parameters.

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 and resource: 'List trackers: spending watchers over a date range with an optional limit'. It explicitly distinguishes them from the period-based Budget plan and from related tools like get_tracker_spending_stats and list_tracker_suggestions.

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?

Provides context that these are not Budget plans and points to get_tracker_spending_stats for per-line spent and list_tracker_suggestions for AI suggestions. It does not explicitly say when to use this versus create_tracker or other siblings, but the scope and alternatives are clear.

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