get_monthly_trend

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Get,' which implies a read operation without explicitly guaranteeing read-only behavior. It does not disclose how trends are aggregated, what time period is covered, or whether any state changes occur.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise for a simple read tool, and every word contributes to the core meaning.

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 presence of multiple sibling tools and one parameter, the description is too sparse to be complete. It lacks usage guidelines, parameter semantics, and behavioral details, leaving critical decisions to the agent; the output schema does not compensate for these 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?

The description does not mention the only parameter 'months,' and schema description coverage is 0%. The schema provides just a type and default (6), leaving the agent to guess that 'months' controls the number of months in the trend; the description adds no semantic value.

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 'Get' and cleary identifies the resource 'monthly spending trends over time.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_expenses or get_summary, since 'trends over time' signals time-series aggregation.

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 'trends over time' implies this tool is for time-series analysis rather than listing or summarizing expenses, but no explicit when-to-use or alternative-exclusion guidance is provided. Without references to sibling tools, the agent must infer the appropriate context.

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