summarize_expenses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the aggregation intent ('summarize by category') but does not describe how dates are handled, whether results are counts or totals, or any other behavioral traits. This is minimal context beyond the tool name.

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 concise sentence with the core action front-loaded. It wastes no words, though it may be too sparse to carry all necessary context on its own.

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 tool is relatively simple with three optional parameters and an output schema present, so the description is minimally viable. However, missing date format details and lack of usage guidance relative to sibling reporting tools leave meaningful 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only reiterates that filters are optional. It does not specify date format, how 'category' matches the data, or the meaning of null/default values. This is better than no parameter insight but still incomplete.

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 ('summarize') and resource ('expenses'), and clearly identifies the grouping dimension ('by category') and optional filters. It is distinct enough from list_expenses, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from monthly_report.

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 implies usage by naming optional date range and category filter, but it does not state when to prefer this tool over siblings like list_expenses, monthly_report, or export_expenses_csv. No exclusion or alternative guidance is provided.

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