Audit Subscriptions & Recurring Costs

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. While annotations indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation with closed-world data, the description explains what the tool actually does: normalizes costs to yearly amounts, calculates income percentages, and identifies savings potential. This gives the agent important context about the tool's analytical behavior.

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 perfectly structured with two sentences: the first explains what the tool does, and the second explains when to use it. Every word earns its place, and the most important information (the tool's purpose) comes first.

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?

For a read-only analysis tool with comprehensive annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides excellent context about what the tool does and when to use it. The only minor gap is the lack of output schema, but the description gives enough information about the analytical outputs (yearly amounts, income percentages, savings potential) for the agent to understand what to expect.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'normalizes them to yearly amounts' and 'calculates what percentage of income they consume,' which aligns with the 'subscriptions' and 'monthly_income' parameters but doesn't add significant semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('analyzes', 'normalizes', 'calculates', 'identifies') and resources ('subscriptions and recurring costs'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'analyze_budget' or 'budget_summary' by focusing specifically on subscription analysis and savings potential.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'when someone wants to know how much they spend on subscriptions, find costs to cut, or understand the true yearly cost of their recurring payments.' This provides clear context and distinguishes it from other financial analysis tools.

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