get_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states that a summary is returned grouped by category, but it does not disclose how null category/date parameters behave, whether it aggregates all expenses, or any limitations. The lack of annotation coverage makes this minimal disclosure insufficient.

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 filler or repetition. It is efficient and easy to parse, though its brevity sacrifices important detail that would improve other dimensions.

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 three optional parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It omits return value details (the output schema exists but the description does not reference it), date filtering behavior, and category null semantics, leaving substantial gaps for a summary tool.

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%, and the description only mentions 'grouped by category,' giving partial meaning to the category parameter. start_date and end_date are completely unexplained, and there is no detail about date filtering, format, or null semantics.

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 identifies the resource ('spending summary') with a clear grouping dimension ('by category'), which distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like list_expenses. However, it does not explicitly contrast with get_monthly_trend or get_budget_status, so full sibling differentiation is absent.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state that it is for aggregate views as opposed to detailed expense lists, nor does it mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred contexts.

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