Triage — Summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by explaining the semantic distinction between uncategorized_count (excludes off-budget tracking accounts and on-budget transfers) and uncategorized_raw_count, which is genuinely useful behavioral context.

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?

Front-loaded with a [READ] tag and the core summary, followed by purpose and the count-definition nuance. Four sentences, none wasteful; the exclusion explanation is dense but earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be described. For a read-only summary tool, the description supplies the key field semantics and usage context, leaving only the undocumented plan_id as a minor gap.

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% and the description never mentions the sole plan_id parameter. It is a single, optional, self-evidently named plan identifier with a null default, so the omission is low-impact, but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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: a combined triage summary counting uncategorized and unapproved transactions. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings triage_uncategorized and triage_unapproved by framing itself as the combined roll-up, though it never names those siblings directly.

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?

"Use this to quickly assess whether the budget needs attention before diving deeper" gives clear context for when to reach for this tool over the detailed triage siblings. It implies the detail tools as alternatives but does not name them or state explicit exclusions.

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