Bookkeeping — Categorization suggestions

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the confidence tiers (high >=80%, medium >=50%, low <50%) derived from payee history, which shapes how an agent should treat each suggestion.

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, all load-bearing, with scope and the read/write boundary front-loaded. No filler.

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 simple read-only suggestion tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies purpose, confidence semantics, and the handoff to the write tool. The only real gap is the undocumented plan_id parameter, which is minor relative to everything else covered.

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?

There is one parameter (plan_id) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or what scope it controls. The schema provides only a title and null default, so the description leaves the parameter entirely unexplained.

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 and resource ('Suggest categories for uncategorized transactions') and the mechanism ('using payee history'). The [READ] prefix plus the explicit pointer to transactions_update cleanly separates it from the write-side sibling.

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?

Usage is scoped to 'uncategorized transactions' and the description explicitly states 'Does NOT write — use transactions_update to apply suggestions', naming both the when-not condition and the alternative tool.

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