accounting_map_endpoint_v1_finance_accounting_map_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It mentions 'Cost: 2 credits per request' and 'Semantic AI Fallback', but does not state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or any rate limits. For a mapping tool, it likely has no side effects, but the absence of explicit disclosure leaves the agent guessing about safety and side-effect profile.

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 sentences plus a cost line. It front-loads the core function and includes no irrelevant information. Every sentence earns its place, and the length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should compensate by explaining the response format. It does not mention whether the tool returns a single mapping or multiple, nor any error handling or language support. The cost is disclosed, but key details about the return value are missing, making the description incomplete for an agent that needs to process the response.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already provides detailed descriptions and examples for both 'concept' and 'targets'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema; it simply restates the general purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 maps unstructured expense concepts, brands, or accounting codes to standardized international accounting frameworks. This identifies a specific verb and resource. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like categorize_item, the focus on accounting frameworks makes the purpose distinct enough for an agent.

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 'concept' parameter description includes explicit usage guidance: 'USE THIS TOOL when you need to categorize a transaction for accounting' and negative constraints ('DO NOT use this tool for purely personal non-business expenses... DO NOT use for tax-only questions'). This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions, fulfilling the dimension fully.

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