summarize_expenses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral context. It conveys a read-only 'get' operation and specifies a date range, but does not explicitly confirm read-only status, side effects, or error behavior. The verb 'get' strongly implies safety, yet the disclosure is minimal.

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?

One sentence of 12 words with crucial information front-loaded ('Get total expenses'). It includes necessary details (date range and ISO format) without unnecessary elaboration.

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 simple tool with two parameters and an existing output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose and input semantics. It lacks guidance on alternative tools, but the basic usage is unambiguous for a straightforward aggregation task.

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 descriptions cover 0% of parameters, but the description compensates by naming both start_date and end_date, specifying ISO format, and clarifying their relationship as a range. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema type declarations.

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 'Get total expenses between start_date and end_date' clearly states a specific verb + resource and indicates aggregation. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like read_expenses (listing) and filter_by_category (categorizing) by focusing on total calculation.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or mention of alternatives among sibling tools. The description implies usage for obtaining a summed amount over a date range but does not clarify when to prefer this over read_expenses or filter_by_category.

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