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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true), so the description's value-added context is the two-phase behavior (preview now, commit later), the returned importId + preview rows, and the side effect that a suggestedAccount gets auto-created on commit. That is meaningful disclosure beyond structured fields; only error/failure behavior is left unstated.

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 short telegraphic sentences, front-loaded with what it creates, followed by the return shape, the follow-up tool, and the mutation precondition. Nothing is redundant enough to cut.

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 nested 4-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers return values, workflow position, and the confirmation gate. It stops short of describing what the preview rows contain or how parse failures surface, which would matter for an agent building on the preview.

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 75%, and the description adds meaning the schema does not: it clarifies hint.accountId vs hint.suggestedAccount and, crucially, that the suggested account is created only at commit time. The content parameter's dual string/object form is restated rather than enriched, which keeps it below a 5.

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 verb and resource ("Create a new Import") and immediately enumerates the two accepted input modes (raw string vs pre-parsed structured content). It also names the follow-up sibling commit_import, so the agent can place this tool in the workflow without guessing.

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?

"Use commit_import to persist" gives an explicit handoff to the correct next tool, and the returns-a-preview note clarifies this is a non-persisting staging step. It does not, however, say when to choose this over the other ingestion siblings like bulk_add_transactions or add_transaction_from_photo.

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