Get financial summary

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions 'server-side statistics' without disclosing whether the operation is read-only, what data scope is included, timezone handling, or response behavior. The 'Return' wording suggests a read operation, but this is not made explicit.

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 filler or redundancy. It is concise, though slightly too terse given the complexity of the five-parameter 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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage, the description carries the full burden of context. It gives the core purpose but lacks return value details, parameter semantics, and usage scenarios, making it insufficient for reliable invocation.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the five parameters. While start_time and end_time can be inferred from 'period', the purpose of keyword, ignore_case, and use_transaction_timezone is entirely unexplained, leaving the agent unable to populate them correctly.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and defines the scope ('period totals and category/account breakdown'), clearly distinguishing it from raw transaction search or trend analysis. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_financial_trends, but the core purpose is clear.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_financial_trends or search_transactions. The description implies it is for period summaries but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative scenarios.

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