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

Annotations are minimal (all hints false), so the description carries the burden. It explains the two modes (autoPost vs remind) and their behaviors, and clarifies the sign/currency convention. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like reversibility, required permissions, or side effects on existing rules. The core behavior is covered, but not exhaustively.

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 two sentences with zero fluff. It front-loads the purpose and examples, then details the sign convention and modes. Every sentence earns its place, and it is concise enough to be quickly parsed by an agent.

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 an 11-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core semantics (recurring, sign, modes) but omits details on frequency options, interval defaults, and end-date behavior. Some of these are partially addressed by schema descriptions, but the tool is complex enough that more context would be beneficial. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 45%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds meaning for 'amount' (sign) and 'mode' (autoPost/remind), but does not explain other parameters like 'interval', 'end_date', 'frequency', or 'account_id'. While some parameters already have schema descriptions (start_date, category_id), the description only partially fills the gap for the many undocumented ones.

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 clearly states the tool sets up recurring payments, with specific examples (rent, salary, subscription, EMI) that distinguish it from one-time planned expenses or reminders. The verb 'Set up' and resource 'something that repeats' are specific, and the sign convention for amounts is explicitly defined, making the tool's purpose unambiguous even among siblings like add_planned_expense.

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 usage for recurring items via examples but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as add_planned_expense (one-time) or add_reminder (not a payment). It gives clear context ('repeats') but no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming of sibling tools. This leaves the agent to infer the boundary.

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