spending_trends

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. It mentions the output includes a line chart and transaction data table, which is some useful transparency about return format, but it doesn't disclose default behaviors like the 500-record limit, the default type='expense' filter, or whether data is read-only. It's a browse tool so non-destructive intent is implied but not stated.

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, efficient, front-loaded with the verb and purpose. Zero wasted words. Could arguably include more detail, but what's present is tight and well-structured.

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 browse tool with 0% schema coverage, 4 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is under-specified. It explains the output visuals (line chart, data table) but doesn't explain parameter effects, defaults, date format expectations, or the expense-only default behavior. Given the moderate complexity, more context is warranted.

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 for the four parameters (type, limit, end_date, start_date). However, the description only explains the grouping dimension (year-month) and says nothing about what type, limit, or date filters control or their formats. This is a partial compensation at best, leaving the date format and filter semantics unexplained.

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 browses spending trends over time, explicitly grouping by year-month and mentioning a line chart plus transaction data table. It uses a specific verb (browse) and resource (spending trends), and while it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, the focus on 'trends' and 'year-month grouping' distinguishes it from plain get_transactions or get_summary.

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 implies this is for viewing temporal spending trends, which is distinct from listing transactions or getting summaries, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over get_transactions, get_summary, or budget_dashboard. No exclusions or alternative names are mentioned.

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