kontist_summarize

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it describe formatting, rounding, timezone behavior, or potential side effects. The word 'summary' implies non-mutation but does not confirm it.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the resource and output components, and the second covers the default behavior efficiently.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no nested objects, the description is mostly sufficient: it states what it returns and the default range. However, the lack of an output schema and explicit behavioral notes leaves minor gaps around return structure and safety.

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 the parameters are already documented with ISO date and defaults. The description adds only a reiteration of the default window ('last 30 days'), not new semantic detail, warranting the baseline score.

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 names a specific resource ('financial summary') and concrete output components (inflows, outflows, net, top counterparties, category breakdown). This clearly distinguishes it from raw transaction listing or balance retrieval siblings.

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 phrase 'for a date range' and 'Default = last 30 days' imply when the tool is useful, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this over kontist_list_transactions or other siblings. Usage context is present but left to inference rather than stated.

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