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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves account details, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't address key aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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: 'Get details for a specific account by ID, including current balance and account information.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes relevant details without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes value, making it appropriately concise and 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 low complexity (one required parameter, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it fails to explain behavioral traits or return values. The description covers the basic purpose but doesn't compensate for the lack of structured data, leaving the agent with incomplete context for safe and effective use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'accountId' parameter clearly documented as 'The unique identifier for the account.' The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Get details for a specific account by ID, including current balance and account information.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('account'), and scope ('by ID'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'up_list_accounts' (which likely lists multiple accounts) or 'up_get_transaction' (which retrieves transaction details), so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like 'up_list_accounts' for listing all accounts or 'up_get_transaction' for transaction details, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves details, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens if the category ID is invalid. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

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 key information (verb, resource, and what details are included) without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the purpose and what details are retrieved, but lacks information on behavioral aspects like error handling or authentication needs. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context to be fully complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'categoryId' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or details about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid IDs or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 with a specific verb ('Get details') and resource ('a specific category by ID'), including what information is retrieved ('name and parent/child relationships'). It distinguishes itself from 'up_list_categories' by focusing on a single category rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other siblings like 'up_get_account' or 'up_get_transaction' beyond the resource type.

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 implies usage when detailed information about a specific category is needed, as opposed to 'up_list_categories' for listing categories. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'up_get_account' or 'up_get_transaction', and does not mention any prerequisites or exclusions (e.g., 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.

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format details. While it implies safe retrieval, critical behavioral traits like permissions or data sensitivity are omitted, making it insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 includes relevant details (fields retrieved). There is no wasted language or redundancy, making it appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool with one parameter.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and fields returned, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., authentication, errors) and doesn't leverage sibling tools for better guidance. Without annotations or output schema, more completeness on usage and behavior would be beneficial.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'transactionId' fully documented in the schema as 'The unique identifier for the transaction'. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is added.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('transaction'), specifying it retrieves detailed information including specific fields (amount, description, category, related account). It distinguishes from siblings like up_list_transactions by focusing on a single transaction rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with up_get_account or up_get_category, which follow similar patterns for different resources.

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 implies usage when detailed information about a specific transaction is needed, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like up_list_transactions for browsing or up_get_account for account details. No guidance on prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid transaction ID) or exclusions is provided, leaving usage context somewhat inferred rather than clearly defined.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns balances, types, and ownership info, but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a list operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the action and scope, and the second specifies return data. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently structured, making every sentence earn 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and return data but lacks completeness for a list tool. It doesn't cover response format details, error cases, or authentication context, which are important for agent usage. The schema handles parameters well, but overall context is minimally adequate.

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 100%, with both parameters ('accountType' and 'ownershipType') well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as default behaviors or interaction effects, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('accounts for the authenticated user'), specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings like 'up_get_account' (singular retrieval) and 'up_get_transaction' (different resource), but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'up_list_categories' or 'up_list_transactions' which share the 'list' pattern for different resources.

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 implies usage for viewing all accounts with optional filtering, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'up_get_account' for single accounts or 'up_list_transactions' for transaction data. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat implied rather than clearly defined.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that categories have a 'parent-child relationship', which is useful behavioral context beyond basic listing. However, it doesn't mention other traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if parentId is invalid. For a read-only list tool with no annotations, this is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds key context (parent-child relationship), and the third provides usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste, making it efficient for agent comprehension.

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 low complexity (single optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, structural context (parent-child), and usage guidance. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from mentioning return format or pagination, but for a simple list tool, this is minor.

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 100%, with the schema fully documenting the optional 'parentId' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples or format details). According to rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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: 'List all spending categories in Up' with the specific verb 'List' and resource 'spending categories'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'up_get_category' (singular retrieval) and 'up_list_transactions' (different resource), though not explicitly named. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from hypothetical category-related siblings beyond scope.

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 context for usage: 'Use this to understand category IDs for filtering transactions', which implicitly guides when to use it (for ID lookup before filtering). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'up_get_category', but the context is sufficient for typical agent decision-making.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it lists transactions (read operation), supports filtering by multiple criteria, returns paginated results, and orders them newest first. This covers scope, output format, and ordering, though it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by filtering and pagination details in subsequent clauses. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's appropriately sized for a tool with multiple parameters and no annotations. There's no wasted text.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, filtering scope, and output behavior (paginated, ordered). However, it lacks details on response format, error cases, or authentication requirements, which would be helpful for a list tool with many filters.

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?

The description adds some semantic context by listing filterable fields (status, date range, category, tags) and implying pagination, but the input schema already has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description doesn't provide additional syntax, examples, or constraints beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: 'List transactions across all accounts or for a specific account.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('transactions'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'up_get_transaction' (singular) and 'up_list_accounts' (different resource). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'up_get_account' or 'up_list_categories' beyond resource type.

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 implies usage context by mentioning filtering capabilities and pagination, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used over 'up_get_transaction' for single transactions or provide guidance on account-specific versus all-account queries. The context is clear but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's purpose (testing connection and authentication) but lacks details on behavioral traits such as rate limits, error responses, or what constitutes a successful test. It does not contradict annotations (none exist), but provides only basic operational context.

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 ('Test the Up API connection') and adds necessary detail ('verify authentication is working'). There is zero waste, and every word earns its place in conveying the tool's function clearly and directly.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough for its purpose. It explains what the tool does and why, though it could enhance completeness by mentioning expected outputs or error handling. However, for a simple connectivity test, it provides adequate context.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter semantics (as there are none), but this is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description does not mislead about inputs.

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 specific action ('Test the Up API connection') and resource ('Up API'), with the additional purpose of verifying authentication. It distinguishes from sibling tools that retrieve data (e.g., up_get_account, up_list_transactions) by focusing on connectivity testing rather than data operations.

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 implies usage context ('verify authentication is working'), suggesting this tool should be used to check API connectivity and auth status. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for actual data retrieval) or name alternatives, leaving some guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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