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

The description states 'Read-only,' but the annotations set readOnlyHint=false, which is a direct contradiction. No other behavioral details are disclosed beyond the report categories and plan limits.

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 compact and front-loaded: matching rule, outputs, read-only claim, and plan limitation are all in a few sentences. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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?

The description covers output categories and plan constraints, and the schema covers the parameters. However, with no output schema and the contradictory read-only claim, the actual behavioral profile is unclear, and the Free-tier limit behavior is underspecified.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds matching semantics like 'same currency and amount, date within a few days,' but it does not meaningfully clarify the individual parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 clear operation: match bank debits against mcp-expense-tracker entries using currency, amount, and date proximity. It also lists the report outputs, which distinguishes it from sibling list/import/export tools.

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?

It gives a clear context for when to use the tool: reconciling bank debits with ledger entries and seeing unmatched items. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the intended niche is easy to infer.

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