Get Category Breakdown

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that spending is broken down by subcategory, leaving out details like whether inactive subcategories are included, whether the result is sorted, or whether aggregation is always performed. This is a minimal disclosure for a tool that produces grouped output.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant phrasing. Every word adds meaning, and the key scope ('single category', 'subcategories') is placed immediately.

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 is concise but sufficient given the simple operation, complete parameter schema, and presence of an output schema. It lacks only deeper behavioral specifics, but an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly for a straightforward aggregation.

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 100%, so parameters are already documented ('The category to break down', date formats, inclusive end date). The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond clarifying the category's role, which matches the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Break down') and names the resource ('spending for a single category by its subcategories'), which immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like summarize_expenses or list_expenses. The phrase 'single category' clarifies the scope without ambiguity.

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 makes the use case clear: use it when you need a subcategory-level breakdown of one category's spending. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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