expense_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read operation and aggregation, but does not explicitly state that it does not modify data, nor does it mention any other behavioral aspects like pagination or data scope. The description is minimal and lacks depth for a tool with no annotation support.

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 concise sentence that directly states the action and optional filters. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant information, making it highly efficient.

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 is simple with two optional parameters and an output schema. The description adequately communicates the core functionality and filter options. While it does not elaborate on what the summary includes, the existence of an output schema reduces that need. It is complete enough for a straightforward read 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 100% as both parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema. The description only restates that filters are optional, adding no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. This aligns with the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 function: 'Get a spending summary' with optional filters. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_expense and edit_expense, which are mutations. The verb 'Get' and resource 'spending summary' are specific and unambiguous.

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 read-only usage (get vs. add/edit), but does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings or mention any exclusions. It provides clear context for a summary retrieval but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives or prerequisites.

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