Bookkeeping — Memo annotation suggestions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond that: the $50 large-transaction threshold and the split-line flagging rule, which tell the agent what counts as 'probably needs one'.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and scoping heuristic, then the one parameter hint. 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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. The remaining gap is the unexplained plan_id and the absence of any note on scope/default behavior when since_date is omitted.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It documents since_date with an ISO format example, but plan_id — a nullable parameter — is not explained at all, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 ('find transactions missing memos') plus the heuristic that decides inclusion (>= $50, splits without memos). This clearly separates it from siblings like bookkeeping_categorization_suggestions, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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 scope ('transactions missing memos that probably need them') implies when it applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many bookkeeping/triage siblings.

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