Categorize Transactions

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

The description discloses important behavioral details beyond the annotations, such as credit consumption on first use, caching with free re-fetches, and the presence of a 'summary' field as the source of truth. This is valuable for an agent deciding whether to call the tool.

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 concise, with two sentences that lead with the primary action and then provide key follow-up details about caching and the summary field. There is no redundant or vague wording.

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?

The description covers the core function, credit behavior, and response hint about the summary field. However, it does not specify the format of the category mappings or elaborate on error cases (e.g., document not found). Given the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable but not fully exhaustive.

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 single parameter document_id has a description that explains it comes from convert_statement or list_statements, providing useful provenance. This goes beyond the basic type declaration and helps the agent know exactly what value to supply.

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 function: running AI transaction categorization on a previously processed document and returning category mappings. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like convert_statement and list_transactions by focusing on categorization.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies it should be used after convert_statement (since it requires a processed document), but it does not mention when not to use it or how it compares to list_transactions or other analysis tools.

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