vaultix_get_transactions_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits like whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get'), authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or output format. It lacks details on what 'summary' entails, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it could be more front-loaded with key details (e.g., 'Get aggregated transaction data'), but its brevity is appropriate for the simple tool.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns aggregated financial data. It doesn't explain what the summary includes (e.g., counts, amounts, currency) or handle complexity like authentication, making it insufficient for an agent to use effectively without guesswork.

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%, with the parameter 'period' fully documented in the schema (enum values and default). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying temporal filtering, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Get transaction summary for a period' states the verb ('Get') and resource ('transaction summary'), but it's vague about what constitutes a 'summary' (e.g., totals, counts, trends) and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'vaultix_get_transaction' (singular) or 'vaultix_list_transactions' (detailed list). It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'vaultix_list_transactions' for detailed records or 'vaultix_get_balance' for financial overview. The description implies usage for aggregated data over a period but offers no explicit when/when-not instructions or sibling comparisons.

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