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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses critical behaviors: it overrides automatic categorization, teaches Pluggy by creating a Category Rule, and explains batch error handling (per-item errors don't fail the whole batch).

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 somewhat lengthy but each sentence adds value. It front-loads the core action, then explains the important side effect, then batch details. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall effective.

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 tool's complexity (side effects, batch processing) and no output schema, the description covers input structure, side-effect implications, and response format. It also references sibling tools for context, making it complete for an AI agent.

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 fully explains the items parameter: it's an array of objects with transaction_id and category_id, and specifies where each ID comes from. It also details the batch response shape (updated, results, 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 the verb 'Corrects', the resource 'category of one or more transactions', and specifies the HTTP method and path. It distinguishes from sibling tools like openfinance_list_transactions and openfinance_list_categories by explaining where to obtain 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?

Guidance is provided on when to use (fix miscategorized transactions, improve future categorization) and how to obtain IDs from sibling tools. No explicit when-not is given, but the side effect of creating a Category Rule is clear, implying careful use.

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