Import transactions

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: the import is a request to YNAB and results land as unapproved transactions, plus how to retrieve them. It does not state whether the call returns immediately or blocks, which is the one remaining behavioral unknown.

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 short sentences: what it does, the timing it replaces, and the follow-up. Front-loaded with the action, no repetition of the title, zero waste.

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 zero-param trigger with annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema covering the response shape, everything an agent needs is present: the action, its timing semantics, and how to observe the result afterward. Nothing material is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly spends no words on inputs and instead explains downstream effects.

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 specific verb+resource: trigger a bank-account transaction import from the plan's linked accounts, explicitly contrasted with the next scheduled import. It implicitly separates itself from create_transactions (manual entry) via 'linked bank accounts', but never names that sibling, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 clear triggering condition ('now, instead of waiting for its next scheduled import') and a concrete follow-up path (list_transactions with status="unapproved"). No explicit when-not or exclusions, but the use case is unambiguous for a zero-param action.

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