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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's 'without changing data' matches those annotations and adds a small behavioral note about grouping movements into one accounting transaction, but it does not disclose anything substantially new.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core behavior, immediately establishes the non-destructive guarantee, and names the relevant sibling tools. There is no filler or redundant restatement.

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 three fully documented required parameters, a simple input shape, and strong safety annotations, the agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly. The only minor gap is the lack of an output-shape description, but the phrase 'see how... would be classified' gives adequate functional context for a read-only preview.

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 exact-name/slug semantics of workspaceRef and portfolioRef and the structure of operations are already documented. The description only vaguely echoes 'chosen wallet movements' and adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('See how'), a specific resource ('chosen wallet movements'), and the outcome ('classified if grouped into one accounting transaction'). It also distinguishes itself from merge_transactions and split_transactions by explicitly labeling itself as the preview step.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool: 'use this preview before merge_transactions or split_transactions.' This gives clear context and names the relevant siblings, though it does not spell out when not to use it beyond those cases.

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