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

The description fully discloses the side effect: overriding automatic categorization and creating Category Rules for future matching. It also explains batch error handling. Annotations are minimal, so the description carries the burden and succeeds.

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 dense paragraph that efficiently conveys behavior, batch details, and side effects. While comprehensive, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for response fields) to improve scanability.

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 description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameter semantics, side effects, error handling, and output shape. Given no output schema and a complex tool, it is remarkably complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by specifying that `transaction_id` comes from `openfinance_list_transactions` and `category_id` from `openfinance_list_categories`, and details the response shape. This adds essential meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 corrects transaction categories, specifies the HTTP method and endpoint, and lists the required ID sources. It leaves no ambiguity about the verb and resource.

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 explains when to use (fix miscategorized transactions, improve accuracy) and how IDs are sourced from sibling tools, but does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with alternatives.

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