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

Annotations provide basic hints, but the description adds critical behavioral details: it overrides automatic categorization, teaches Pluggy by creating a Category Rule, and explains batch error handling. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 well-structured: it starts with the core action, then explains the parameter format, then the behavioral impact, then the return format. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given no output schema, the description provides a complete picture of inputs, side effects, and response structure. It addresses all key aspects a user would need to use the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining the `items` array structure, the required fields transaction_id and category_id, their sources, and the exact response shape including per-item errors.

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 it corrects transaction categories, specifies the HTTP method PATCH /transactions/:id, and distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing openfinance_list_transactions and openfinance_list_categories for obtaining the required IDs.

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 explains when to use the tool (to fix miscategorized transactions) and describes the side effect of creating a Category Rule. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear and alternatives are implied via sibling references.

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