Accounting Inbox

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as false, so the description's mention of 'safe' steps aligns but adds little new behavioral context. No contradiction found.

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 very concise (two sentences), front-loads the core identity ('merged accounting inbox'), and uses minimal but effective words. It could be slightly expanded for clarity but is not wasteful.

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?

Given 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain what 'safe next steps' or 'dry-run steps' produce, nor does it provide guidance on parameter usage beyond what the schema offers. Annotations fill some gaps, but completeness is only adequate.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 it is a 'merged accounting inbox' and describes the two modes (scan, dry_run) with their actions. It distinguishes the tool's purpose from vague alternatives, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'recommend_workflow'.

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 description provides guidance on when to use each mode ('scan plans; dry_run runs safe dry-run steps'), but it does not specify when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as 'classify_bank_transactions' or 'suggest_booking'.

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