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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the authorization requirement ('must be a host'), which is valuable behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 one paragraph of three sentences, reasonably concise and front-loaded. Minor wordiness with dashes and enumeration, but overall efficient.

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 24 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and required fields but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or examples. Adequate but not comprehensive for a complex tool.

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 must compensate. It mentions several key parameters (name, amount, fee, category, phase, date, banking references, links to receipt/project/vendor/place/team) but fails to cover all 24 parameters, leaving gaps for nested objects like payer and receiver.

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 'Record' and the resource 'a bank-side ledger row' for actual money moving (income/expense/transfer). It lists key fields but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'record_expense', which could cause confusion.

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 specifies required parameters (event_id, name, impact, amount) and a permission requirement ('you must be a host'), but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'record_expense' or when not to use it.

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