ReviewUnapproved

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond them: each result carries a *computed* suggested category learned from recent approved payee history, and it flags that a user confirmation step precedes any write.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core listing behavior, then the follow-up workflow. No filler and nothing redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains — the derived suggestion and the next action — is stated, making the definition complete 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents limit, plan_id, since_date and history_days. The description alludes to the history mechanism ('how the same payee was categorized recently'), which lightly maps to history_days, but adds no format or range detail. Baseline 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?

Specific verb (list) plus resource (transactions waiting for approval) plus a distinctive behavior (suggested category derived from recent payee history). This clearly separates it from the generic sibling Ynab_ListTransactions and from Ynab_GetTransaction.

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?

Explicitly routes the follow-up action to UpdateTransactions and conditions it on user confirmation, so the agent knows this tool is read-only reconnaissance. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over ListTransactions, but the 'waiting for approval' scoping makes it inferable.

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