create_receipt_split_transaction

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

Annotations cover basic hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc.), but the description adds valuable context about 'proportional tax allocation'—a behavioral detail not captured in annotations. However, it doesn't explain mutation consequences, error conditions, or how the split logic works beyond tax allocation.

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, dense sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action and key behavioral trait efficiently, making it easy to parse while conveying essential information.

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 complex mutation tool with 13 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It hints at the tool's purpose but lacks details on parameter usage, error handling, or output structure. The presence of an output schema mitigates some gaps, but the description should do more given the tool's complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no parameter explanations. The description mentions 'receipt items' and 'proportional tax allocation', which loosely relate to parameters like 'categories', 'receipt_tax', and 'receipt_total', but doesn't clarify their roles, relationships, or required formats. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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 ('create a split transaction') with the source ('from receipt items') and a key behavioral detail ('with proportional tax allocation'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_transaction' by specifying the split nature and receipt-based processing.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_transaction' or 'create_transactions'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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