Get spending breakdown

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds useful context about minor units, category label resolution, confirmed-category bucketing with an 'uncategorised' fallback, and null household views. However, it describes 'views' without a corresponding parameter in the schema, which is confusing and potentially misleading about how to select a view.

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 relatively short, but the 'Views:' portion is long and lists definitions for four views without explaining how they are selected or returned. It could be more concise and better aligned with the actual schema.

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 tool with no output schema, the description explains some return details (per-month, minor units, category labels, uncategorised) but leaves the view structure unexplained. It is unclear whether the tool returns all views or requires a view selection that is not present in the input schema, which is a significant gap for an agent comparing this tool to siblings.

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 schema fully describes the only parameter 'months' with format and default. Description coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, resulting in the baseline score.

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 returns per-month income and spending totals broken down by category, with units and label resolution. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like get_categorisation_stats or aggregate_transactions, and the 'views' detail introduces some ambiguity about the tool's scope.

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 usage for monthly income/spending breakdown by category but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions.

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