Get Transaction Categories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond that: it explains what verbose=True does ('preserves full API details, including groups and system flags') and what the tool returns ('categories, count, and verbose'). This enriches the agent's understanding of the response behavior and the verbose parameter's effect.

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 two short sentences plus a returns line. The first sentence states the purpose immediately, followed by a concise explanation of the verbose parameter and the output. No filler or redundancy. It is optimally front-loaded and every sentence 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?

For a tool with one optional boolean parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the tool's purpose, the parameter behavior, and summarizes the return fields ('categories, count, and verbose'). Since an output schema exists, the agent can rely on it for detailed structure. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema provides only a boolean verbose parameter with no description (schema coverage 0%). The description fully compensates by explaining the parameter's effect: 'verbose=True preserves full API details, including groups and system flags.' This is exactly what an agent needs to decide whether to set it, making the parameter semantics clear and self-sufficient.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('category IDs and names'), and the intended use case ('for lookups and transaction updates'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_transactions or get_budgets, which handle different resources. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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 clearly conveys when to use the tool: when category IDs and names are needed for lookups or transaction updates. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the context 'for lookups and transaction updates' gives enough situational guidance. The sibling list shows no similar category-listing tool, so the usage context is effectively clear.

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