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

With annotations only providing readOnlyHint=false, the description adds critical behavioral context: overriding automatic categorization, creating Category Rules for future similar transactions, and batch error handling (per-item errors do not fail whole batch). This fully informs the agent of side effects.

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 front-loaded with purpose and efficient, though slightly verbose with behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place, but a minor restructuring could improve readability.

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 the batch nature with side effects and no output schema, the description comprehensively covers usage, parameter sources, behavioral impact, and response shape. It leaves no critical gaps for agent 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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the narrative explains the `items` parameter structure, required fields, and provides source tools for valid IDs. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, enabling correct parameter construction.

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 purpose: 'Corrects the category of one or more transactions' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing related list tools for input IDs and implying this is the only categorization correction tool.

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 provides clear context for when to use: 'to fix miscategorized transactions and improve categorization accuracy going forward.' It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance but effectively sets expectations about side effects (creating category rules).

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