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

Discloses important behavioral details beyond annotations: it overrides automatic categorization, creates category rules for future transactions, and describes batch behavior (per-item errors do not fail the whole batch). This adds significant value since annotations only mark readOnlyHint as false.

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 front-loaded with the action and endpoint, then provides necessary details. While it is somewhat long, every sentence serves a purpose. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall it is well-structured.

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 complexity (batch update with side effects) and lack of output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: how to call it, side effects (rule creation), response format, and error handling. It is complete and leaves no significant gaps.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains the parameter semantics: the items array structure, required fields (transaction_id and category_id), and how to obtain these from other tools. It also details the response shape, thoroughly compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 action ('Corrects the category of one or more transactions') and the resource (transactions). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the use of IDs from openfinance_list_transactions and openfinance_list_categories, making it unique among transaction-related tools.

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?

Provides clear context for use: to fix miscategorized transactions and improve future categorization accuracy. It explains the input structure and source of IDs, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, which is acceptable given the specificity of the tool.

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