detect_recurring_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses meaningful behavior: transactions are flagged as regular, grouped by counterpart and direction, and enriched with detected payment interval and average amount. It does not mention scan limitations or heuristic caveats, but it goes beyond a bare 'list transactions' statement.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the operation, followed by output grouping and then concrete example use cases. Every phrase earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 description gives enough about the return shape (grouped by counterpart/direction, interval, average amount) for a tool with no output schema. It covers the main use cases and parameter intent. It could mention that scanning is capped (perPage up to 500), but that lives in the schema, so the description is adequately complete.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters well. The description adds domain context like 'salary, rent, subscriptions' to the direction semantics, but that mostly mirrors the enum descriptions. It does not substantially extend parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List transactions flagged as regular' and immediately enumerates examples (salary, rent, subscriptions, standing orders). It also states the output grouping and computed fields, clearly distinguishing it from a generic raw transaction list such as list_transactions.

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?

It provides concrete use cases: 'Use this to answer "what subscriptions do I have?" or "what are my fixed costs?"'. This is clear guidance on when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is strong enough.

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