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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which fully cover the safety profile. The description adds 'does NOT save' (redundant) and 'same rule engine the app uses' (context, not behavioral). No contradiction, but little extra beyond 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?

The description is three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then returns, then a routing hint. No wasted words, and every sentence adds value.

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 the core purpose, the safety (via annotations), the return fields (likely in the output schema), and provides a clear alternative for recording. The main gap is parameter semantics for account_id and sender_id (beyond schema) and a lack of differentiation from test_parse_rule, but overall it is fairly complete for a read-only parse tool.

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 only 33% (sender_id has a description). The description implicitly explains 'text' as the bank SMS/email body but does not explain account_id or sender_id beyond what the schema provides. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate more for the remaining parameters but does not.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Run a bank SMS/email body through the same rule engine the app uses.' It also specifies the returned fields and explicitly says it does NOT save, which differentiates it from log_transaction. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 gives an explicit when-not: 'does NOT save' and directs to 'Use log_transaction to record it,' which is a clear alternative for recording. However, it does not mention other similar tools like test_parse_rule or save_parse_rule, so the guidance is partial but still useful.

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