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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat mutating behavior. It adds that logging creates a transaction on an account, which is useful, but it does not disclose side effects on the planned expense itself (e.g., deletion or marking as resolved). This is a minor gap but not contradictory.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and the two possible actions. It is concise and easy to parse, with no wasted words. It could be slightly more formal but is well-structured.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (5 params, 2 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential scenarios (log vs. skip) adequately. It does not describe every edge case (e.g., default date, account handling), but the schema fills those gaps. It is complete enough for correct invocation in most cases.

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 60%, and the description adds no parameter-level details. It does not explain the meaning of 'id' (planned expense identifier) or the 'action' enum beyond what the schema lists, nor does it clarify conditional requirements like account_id for log when the plan lacks an account. Since coverage is not high, the description should compensate but fails to.

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's purpose: resolving a planned expense by either logging it as a transaction (with optional real amount/date) or skipping it. It uses a specific verb ('resolve') and resource ('planned expense'), and implicitly distinguishes from siblings like add_planned_expense (creation) and log_transaction (general logging).

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 provides clear usage context: use it when a planned expense has happened (log it) or won't happen (skip). This is a specific trigger condition, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. It is sufficient for an agent to infer when to invoke this tool over generic transaction tools.

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