find_anomalies

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

With no annotations, the description must communicate behavioral traits, but it only states the tool's purpose. It does not disclose what the tool returns, whether it is read-only, how severity thresholds affect output, or any side effects, offering minimal transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It states the core function efficiently and meets the conciseness standard.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what the agent can expect from the tool. It only gives a high-level goal with no mention of output format, severity behavior, or practical usage context, making it incomplete for an anomaly-detection tool.

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% with clear descriptions for both csvPath and severityThreshold. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') with a distinct resource ('spending anomalies and potential fraud'), which clearly separates it from siblings like find_subscriptions and analyze_amex_spending. However, 'potential fraud' is broad and not further qualified, so it stops short of a fully precise purpose statement.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools imply different purposes, but the description does not state conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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