Suggest category for payees

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context about provenance (ZenMoney's suggestion service plus the user's own history), which explains why results may vary per user. It does not mention cost, rate limits, or what happens when no suggestion is 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the two suggestion sources are packed into one clause. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter read tool.

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 suggestion tool with no output schema and a fully documented single parameter, the description gives enough to call it correctly and understand where answers come from. It stops short of describing result shape or fallback behavior, which is a minor gap.

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 100% and there is a single parameter, so the schema already explains that payees are names as they appear on a receipt or statement. The description adds no format, casing, or matching-behavior guidance beyond that, so it sits at the baseline.

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 names a specific verb (suggest) and resource (category and merchant for payee names), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like list_categories or list_payees, but the 'suggestion' framing is distinctive enough to separate it.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when it has payee names and needs a category/merchant guess. There is no statement of when to prefer this over list_categories or a manual lookup, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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