summarize

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool provides 'analysis, financial advice, and a visualization graph,' which gives some sense of output behavior, but it does not explicitly disclose side effects, permissions, or limitations. The read-only nature 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It places the main verb and resource first, then adds the key outputs. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain outputs and parameter behavior. It does mention the three output types (analysis, advice, graph) but lacks detail on formats or how the category filter works. While the core purpose is covered, several important aspects remain unclear.

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 only hints at the purpose of start_date and end_date via 'between two dates' but omits any details about date formats, inclusivity, or the 'category' parameter entirely. This leaves significant ambiguity for the optional parameter.

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 function with a specific verb ('Summarize'), resource ('expenses'), and scope ('between two dates'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning unique outputs: 'detailed analysis, financial advice, and a visualization graph.'

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 tool is for analytical summarization rather than adding or listing expenses, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide any exclusions. The context is clear but relies on inference.

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