enrich_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits such as whether this is a mutation, if it requires authentication, or if it has side effects. It only states the operation, leaving critical behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 sentence, which is concise but lacks essential information. It is too sparse and does not earn its place by providing critical details about usage or behavior.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (array of objects input, enrichment operation), the description fails to cover prerequisites, error conditions, or idempotency. The output schema exists but does not compensate for missing behavioral and usage 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description only says 'raw transactions' for the 'transactions' parameter. It does not explain the expected format, required fields, or constraints for the objects in the array, forcing the agent to infer or guess.

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 enriches raw transactions with categorization and merchant data, distinguishing it from sibling tools that retrieve or generate transaction reports. However, 'enrich' is somewhat vague, lacking specifics on the enrichment process.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_customer_transactions or load_historic_transactions. The description does not mention prerequisites or scenarios where enrichment is appropriate.

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