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

The description goes beyond annotations by detailing the behavioral impact: overriding automatic categorization, teaching Pluggy by creating a Category Rule, and batch error handling (per-item errors do not fail the whole batch). Annotations only state non-read-only, non-destructive, etc., but the description adds critical context. No contradiction.

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 detailed and front-loaded with the main action. It is slightly long but all sentences are necessary. Could be tightened by combining related points, but no redundancy.

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 operation, side effects, error handling) and the lack of output schema, the description provides a complete picture: input requirements, output shape (updated, results with transaction_id/category/categoryId, errors), and references to sibling tools. No 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the 'items' parameter structure: it is an array of objects with transaction_id and category_id, and it tells the agent where to obtain these IDs (from openfinance_list_transactions and openfinance_list_categories). This adds meaning beyond the raw 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 clearly states the verb 'Corrects' and the resource 'category of one or more transactions', referencing the HTTP method PATCH. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the source of transaction_id and category_id (list_transactions and list_categories).

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 description provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: to fix miscategorized transactions and improve future categorization. It explains the side effect of creating a Category Rule, which helps agents decide whether to use this tool vs. other tools. It also implies when not to use it (if you don't want to affect future categorizations).

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