Audit Credit Card Payments

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It discloses the API call cost structure (3 + C + M calls, plus additional calls if apply=true), explains the cascading effects across months, and clarifies the difference between audit-only mode and automatic correction mode. This provides valuable operational context that annotations don't cover.

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 efficiently structured with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains the recommendation logic, and the third provides crucial cost information. Every sentence earns its place by adding distinct value.

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 mutation tool with readOnlyHint=false but no output schema, the description does well by explaining the audit logic, cost implications, and the apply parameter's effect. It could be more complete by describing the return format or what happens when corrections are applied, but given the annotations and schema coverage, it provides substantial context.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds some context about the 'apply' parameter (explaining it triggers automatic fixes and adds API calls), but doesn't provide additional semantic meaning for other parameters beyond what's already in the schema descriptions.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Audits credit card payment categories by comparing each card's month-end balance against the payment category's available balance.' It specifies the verb (audits), resource (credit card payment categories), and method (balance comparison). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on auditing rather than creating, updating, or listing operations.

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 explicit usage guidance: it explains when to use the tool (for auditing credit card payments), when not to use it (by default it's audit-only unless apply=true), and mentions the cost implications (API call counts). It also distinguishes from siblings by its specific auditing function versus general CRUD operations.

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