suggest_category

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. 'Suggests' implies a read-only operation and the description explains the suggestion logic (past payee categorization, amount disambiguation), but it never explicitly confirms no side effects and does not describe the return format or confidence.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a specific, useful edge case. No filler or repetition; every sentence earns its place.

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 simple suggestion tool with a fully described schema but no output schema or annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It omits the return format (e.g., single category vs. ranked list) and does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, which an agent would need to invoke it confidently.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining how payee_name and amount are used: suggestions come from past payee categorization and amount helps disambiguate multiple charges. Budget_id is left to the schema, but the extra semantic context lifts this above baseline.

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 clear verb (suggests) and resource (category for a transaction), and explains the basis (past payee categorization). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling bulk_suggest_categories, leaving the single-vs-bulk scope to be inferred from the singular 'a transaction'.

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 a useful scenario ('especially useful when one payee covers multiple different charges... told apart by amount') but does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like categorize_transaction or bulk_suggest_categories. It provides a condition for value, not a complete when-to-use rule.

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