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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces this by stating the entries are 'suggested, non-binding' and that the ledger platform owns amounts, cost basis, and posting. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as the non-posting nature of the tool and the route-to-review flag behavior.

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 dense but well-structured: purpose first, then output details, then parameter guidance, then a caveat. The legal citations add specificity but are somewhat verbose; still, they are relevant for a tax-oriented tool. No filler or repetition.

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 output schema, annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description covers all essential operational aspects: input constraints, optional custom chart behavior, non-binding output, and the governing tax authority context. There is no obvious missing information an agent would need to invoke 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that chart_of_accounts is pattern-matched per role, that custom account names are used when provided, and that omitting it yields a standard crypto-treasury chart. It also clarifies the 100-transaction cap contextually in the description of the output.

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 names a specific verb ('Map') and resource ('classified blockchain transactions' into 'journal-entry-ready ledger lines against a chart of accounts'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like classify_batch/classify_transaction by operating on already-classified transactions and producing mapping output rather than classification.

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 implies the tool is for post-classification mapping and clarifies when to pass a custom chart_of_accounts vs. omit it for the standard chart. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say 'use this instead of classify_*', but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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