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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior; the description adds only that the record is returned 'in full' and shows the endpoint path. It does not add auth, rate-limit, error, or return-shape context beyond the annotations.

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?

Two short fragments, front-loaded with what is returned and the endpoint path. There is no wasted text.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers the resource and scope. It is slightly thin on return format because there is no output schema, but 'in full' provides minimal context.

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%, with the type enum and transaction_id documented in the schema. The description adds the endpoint path mapping categories to URL segments, but does not explain value mapping or id semantics 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 identifies a single bank transaction and enumerates the three transaction types, making clear this retrieves one record rather than a list. It is a clear verb+resource implication, but it does not explicitly name list_bank_transactions as the sibling alternative.

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 implies use when retrieving a single transaction by type and id via the endpoint path, but never states when to use it instead of list_bank_transactions or that an id must be obtained first.

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