Enrich a transaction descriptor

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, but the description adds real value beyond them: it makes an outbound third-party call to Brandfetch, may consume credits, and explicitly denies charge/bank-connection/payment side effects. That is useful behavioral context for an agent.

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 tight sentences with zero filler. The core action comes first, followed by cost/side-effect information, so the most decision-relevant content is front-loaded.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers the action, the external call, credit cost, and the absence of financial side effects. It could briefly indicate the shape of returned brand data, but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description only adds that the label and country are forwarded to Brandfetch; it says nothing extra about the account parameter or the country-code format.

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?

States a specific verb (resolve/enrich) and resource (transaction label -> brand data), and clarifies it is not a payment or bank operation. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many sibling brand tools (get_brand, search_brands, prefetch_brand), so an agent must infer which to pick.

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 phrase 'user-requested transaction label' implies the trigger condition, and 'may consume credits' warns of cost. However, it never names alternatives such as get_brand or search_brands, nor says when not to use this tool, leaving routing to inference.

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