check_exclusion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions returning excluded:true but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, idempotent, requires authentication, or has any side effects. The behavioral context is minimal.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences plus a list of rules. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose. Every element is meaningful and there is no redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should fully explain the return value, which it partially does. However, it fails to explain the role of most parameters (memo, amount, partner_name) and does not cover error conditions or edge cases. The context is incomplete for an agent to use the tool reliably.

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 only 25% (only 'employees' has a description). The description lists rules but does not explain how memo, amount, or partner_name relate to the exclusion logic. It adds no value over the schema for these parameters.

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: a 7-rule exclusion check for Japanese accounting that returns whether a transaction should not be auto-journalized. It distinguishes itself from siblings like check_duplicate and classify_transaction by focusing on exclusion rules.

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 implies usage for checking exclusion from auto-journalization but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No guidance on prerequisites or comparison with sibling tools.

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