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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: which output formats come back, that FITIDs are unique and the ending balance is included, and the precondition to build transaction objects first with raw `text` only as a fallback.

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 single paragraph is front-loaded with the when-to-use condition, then the required data shape, then outputs, then exclusions — every sentence carries information. Minor cost from the embedded example user queries, but they aid matching rather than padding.

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?

For a 12-parameter conversion tool with an output schema, the description covers the missing pieces an agent needs: the preferred input construction (structured transaction objects before raw text), the range of returned formats, and the boundary against file-attachment conversion and bank connectivity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real guidance beyond the schema: it prescribes the order of dates/amounts in the transaction objects and warns to use `text` only when objects cannot be constructed. It does not, however, touch the many formatting parameters (intu_bid, account_last4, date_order), leaving those to the 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?

States a specific verb+resource (convert pasted/typed statement rows into a QBO/OFX/QIF file) and distinguishes itself from the sibling by naming convert_statement_to_qbo as the tool for attached statement files. An agent can pick between the two without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (rows the user pasted, typed, or showed in a photo/table, plus example user phrasings like "convert csv to qbo") and explicit when-not-to-use (statement file attached → convert_statement_to_qbo). It also bounds scope by saying it does not connect to banks or QuickBooks.

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