Get Spending Analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the tool provides aggregated ranking and optional time bucketing. It does not disclose pagination, performance implications of large date ranges, or how the 'top_n' parameter affects results beyond what is in the schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and adds the key optional feature in the second sentence. No unnecessary words.

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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no discussion of filtering or result structure, the description is incomplete. It explains the main ranking and time bucketing but omits important filtering capabilities (accounts, categories, transfers, top_n limit). The annotations provide safety context but not operational completeness.

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 56%, with some parameters (budget_id, date formats, time_granularity, include_transfers) documented in the schema. The tool description adds meaning for time_granularity and implies group_by via 'rank by category/payee', but does not explain top_n (ranking limit) or filtering parameters like account_ids and category_ids. Thus, it partially compensates for the schema gaps.

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 clear verbs ('aggregate', 'rank') and specifies the resource ('spending') and scope ('over a date range'). It mentions optional time granularity. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like search_transactions or get_spending_trends, which also deal with spending data.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'for quick insights' implies a summary use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use or mention of alternative tools.

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