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

The description discloses meaningful side effects beyond the generic annotations: entries land in the review queue, category is auto-suggested from the merchant when omitted, and excluded transactions still move the balance but stay out of insights and budgets. Since annotations only carry false flags, the description carries the behavioral burden and mostly meets it.

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?

Four compact sentences, all substantive: core purpose, category behavior, review-queue side effect, and the excluded nuance. There is no filler or unnecessary prose.

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?

Covers the purpose, the required amount semantics, the review-queue side effect, and the non-obvious excluded behavior; the output schema can cover the return shape. It does not mention transfer/group alternatives or failure behavior, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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?

The description adds important meaning beyond the schema: amount sign semantics, account currency, optional category_id auto-suggestion from merchant, and concrete excluded examples. This compensates for the low 44% schema coverage, though note, place, and merchant are left to inference.

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 action ('Record') with an explicit resource ('an expense (negative amount) or income (positive) on an account') and even gives the sign convention for amounts. The scope clearly differentiates it from transfer and group-expense siblings without needing to name them.

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?

Gives clear conditions for what belongs here: real expenses/income, with excluded=true for balance-only movements such as reimbursements or refundable deposits. It stops short of explicitly directing the agent to create_transfer for transfers or add_group_expense for group spending, so it lacks a full when-not-to-use statement.

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