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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does reveal that results are aggregated 'by reason' over a window, implying a read-only, grouped spend summary. However, it does not clarify whether only outflows are included, how grouping is represented, or what the response shape looks like.

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 a single, memorable sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core concept, though its brevity borders on cryptic and sacrifices useful operational detail.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description is too thin. An agent has no way to know what owner/network/days mean, what data is returned, or how this summary relates to wallet movements and statements.

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 0%, and the description does not explicitly explain the owner, days, or network parameters. The phrase 'over a window' hints at the days parameter and 'reason' hints at output grouping, but this is insufficient for an agent to confidently map each parameter to its intended value.

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 phrase 'Where the money went over a window, added up by reason' conveys a summary of spending/outflows over a time period, grouped by category. This is reasonably specific and helps distinguish it from wallet_balance, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not mention wallet_movements or wallet_statement.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like wallet_movements, wallet_statement, or wallet_balance. No conditions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection criteria are provided, leaving the agent to infer the intended use.

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