Categorize Transaction

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

Annotations already indicate write-only (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'manual classification' and 'tax deduction tracking'. It does not explain whether categories are overwritten or appended, nor does it mention idempotency, which annotations already provide. No contradiction with annotations.

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: two sentences plus an example and Spanish translation. It front-loads the purpose. The example adds value, and the bilingual approach is efficient for the context. Every sentence contributes to understanding.

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 simplicity (3 parameters, all documented, with output schema), the description adequately explains the purpose, mapping to tax categories, and provides an example. It does not cover error cases or return structure, but the output schema handles that. For this complexity, it is nearly 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?

Schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds a concrete example ('id='tx_abc', category='supplies', notes='Office paper Q1'') and bilingual translations, providing additional clarity beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Apply a category') and resource ('to a bank transaction'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'match_transaction_to_invoice' or 'list_transactions'. It also explains the business context ('categories map to expense categories for tax deduction tracking').

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 manual classification but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., batch categorization) or provide exclusion criteria. The example gives a usage scenario but lacks explicit guidelines.

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