summarize

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether this is read-only, whether it includes subtotals/totals, how the category grouping behaves when category is null (all categories or ungrouped), or what the output shape looks like. For an aggregation tool, these behavioral details matter significantly.

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?

Single sentence, zero filler. It front-loads the verb and key info efficiently. However, given the 0% schema coverage and ambiguous category parameter, some additional explanation would be justified despite the good 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?

A summarize/aggregate tool with no output schema, no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an ambiguous category parameter is under-explained. The description leaves the agent uncertain about output format, category behavior, and how it differs from list_expenses. For an aggregation tool with these gaps, more context is needed.

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. It explains the purpose of start_date/end_date semantically ('inclusive date range') which is useful, but the 'category' parameter is entirely unexplained—its default null and meaning (filter vs grouping key) are ambiguous. The description mentions 'by category' but doesn't clarify whether category is required for the summary, optional filtering, or how null behaves.

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 clear verb+resource+scope: 'Summarize expenses by category within an inclusive date range.' It distinguishes from siblings (add_expense creates, list_expenses lists), and 'summarize' implies aggregation rather than raw listing. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or clarify how summarize differs in output from list_expenses.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this vs list_expenses. The verb 'summarize' implies grouping/aggregation, and 'by category' hints at the grouping dimension, but there's no clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. Sibling tools suggest this is meant for aggregated views, but that's only implied.

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