categorize_bank_transaction_as_expense

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it creates a new expense record, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like transaction status changes, potential side effects on bank transaction categorization, or error conditions. It adds some value beyond annotations but is not fully transparent.

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?

Three sentences total, each sentence serves a clear purpose: first describes the action, second specifies the use case, third provides decision guidance. No superfluous words, front-loaded with the main verb.

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 12 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description provides adequate purpose and usage guidance. However, it does not mention return value or what happens after categorization (e.g., success/error response). With high schema coverage, the description is minimally 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 coverage is 100% with all 12 parameters described well. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters, so 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 uses a specific verb 'categorize' and resource 'uncategorized bank transaction', explicitly stating the outcome 'expense'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'match_bank_transaction' and 'categorize_bank_transaction_as_customer_payment' by naming alternatives and usage preferences.

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?

It clearly states when to use this tool ('routine spending that should become a new expense record') and when not to ('Prefer matching when...', 'use manual journals only for exception cases'), providing explicit context for alternative tools.

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