Classify Bank Transactions

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description only mentions 'requires approval' for execute_apply. It does not disclose what 'classify' does (e.g., is it read-only?), what 'dry_run_apply' previews, or the consequences of executing. The phrase 'Merged unmatched-bank classification' lacks 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?

While very short (two sentences), the description is under-specified rather than concise. The first sentence is cryptic, and the second provides only mode names. It fails to earn its place by not adding value; a longer description would be warranted.

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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters, three modes, destructive hint, no output schema), the description is grossly incomplete. It provides no information about return values, error conditions, or side effects. An agent cannot safely invoke this tool based solely on this description.

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%, so the schema already fully documents parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 opens with 'Merged unmatched-bank classification', which is vague and does not clearly state the tool's primary action. It then lists three modes without explaining what 'classification' means or how this tool differs from siblings like 'get_transaction' or 'suggest_booking'. The purpose is unclear and not differentiated.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not explain when each mode is appropriate or what prerequisites exist (e.g., which accounts are eligible). An agent cannot determine the correct context for invocation.

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