Get categorisation stats

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only nature. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by explaining the output dimensions (counts and minor-unit totals split by direction) and the three categorisation states. No contradictions detected.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a practical use case. No wasted words or redundant content.

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 no-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what is returned (counts and totals by categorisation type and direction) and why it is useful. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is vacuously 100%. The description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics, and the baseline of 4 applies.

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: to provide categorisation coverage stats (counts and minor-unit totals) for user-categorised, auto-categorised, and uncategorised transactions, split by direction. This is distinct from sibling tools like get_spending_breakdown or list_categories, making the purpose 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 provides a clear use case: 'Useful for judging how complete category-based analysis will be.' It does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or point to alternatives, but the use case is specific enough to guide an agent.

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