Suggest Transaction Categories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description explicitly states 'does NOT apply changes', consistent with a read-only operation. It adds valuable behavioral details such as how confidence thresholds affect which suggestions appear in update_actions, and that transfers are excluded since they cannot be categorized.

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 consists of three well-structured sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second clarifies what does not happen, and the third provides actionable guidance on confidence levels and manual review.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the core behavior, confidence mechanism, relationship with update_transactions, and key caveats (transfers cannot be categorized). It could be more explicit about the full output format, but it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent.

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 78% (7 of 9 parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 analyses uncategorized transactions using payee history, amount patterns, and scheduled transaction matching, returning suggestions with confidence levels. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_transactions by noting it does NOT apply changes.

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 explains when to use the tool (to get categorization suggestions) and what it does not do (does not apply changes). It also hints at using update_transactions with the update_actions output, but does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it.

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