Triage — Unmatched manual

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the domain meaning of the entries, that the net amount represents the account's drift from the bank for these entries alone, and the default windows (30 days, 18 months). It does not discuss output shape, but an output schema exists.

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] marker and opening statement of what it returns. The prose is dense but every sentence earns its place by explaining domain semantics; the illustrative '$9,469' example is the only slightly expendable detail.

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 read-only triage tool with an output schema, the description supplies enough: what it finds, why such entries exist, what the aggregate means, and the filtering semantics of three parameters. The only missing piece an agent would want is the plan_id parameter's meaning.

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 the burden, and it does for three of four parameters: account_id narrows to one account, older_than_days is the minimum age (default 30), and since_date bounds the read window (default 18 months). plan_id is never explained, leaving one 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource: identifying hand-entered (manual) transactions on bank-linked accounts that never cleared. It defines the scope precisely ('On an account YNAB imports from...') and the concept that distinguishes it from the other triage_* siblings, which examine pending imports, uncategorized, unapproved, and reconciliation issues.

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?

It implies usage by explaining what an unmatched manual entry means (duplicate, failed payment, or typo) and why the aggregate net amount matters, but it never explicitly says when to prefer this over triage_pending_imports, triage_reconciliation, or transactions_get, nor does it state any exclusion conditions.

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