Get Latest Weekly Summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and side-effect profile. The description adds useful behavioral detail by specifying the exact return fields (period dates, total, daily breakdowns, category totals, AI summary), which is not redundant with annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations; 'Get' aligns with readOnlyHint. The additional return-structure detail justifies a 4.

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 two short sentences plus a 'Returns:' line that enumerates fields. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately clarifies the output. No unnecessary words; every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function and result. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description effectively explains the return value by listing the JSON fields. It covers all essential aspects: period dates, total amount, daily breakdowns, category totals, and AI summary. It does not discuss edge cases like empty data or error handling, but that is not critical for a simple read-only fetch. Slight room for improvement in mentioning possible absence of data, but overall complete for its complexity.

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?

The input schema has no properties (0 parameters), so there is no parameter documentation burden. Per the rubric, 0 params warrant a baseline of 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and its mention of the return structure is sufficient. No gap exists here.

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 states a specific action (get the most recent weekly spending summary) and resource (weekly summary). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_weekly_summary_periods' and 'get_summary_by_period' by emphasizing 'most recent' and implying no arguments are needed. This enables an agent to choose it correctly over period-specific alternatives.

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 when to use this tool: when you need the latest weekly summary without specifying a period. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or conditions for not using it, the term 'most recent' plus the existence of period-specific siblings provides clear contextual guidance. A minor gap is the lack of an explicit exclusion statement.

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