summarize

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses inclusive date ranges and category fallback, but it does not specify whether 'summarize' means sum, count, average, or another aggregation. The output schema likely covers return format, but the aggregation metric is ambiguous.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the core action ('Summarize all expenses by category') and add a useful conditional without any superfluous words. This is an appropriate size for the tool's simplicity.

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 has a simple parameter set and an output schema, so the description need not detail return values. It covers the key aspects of category grouping and date inclusivity, but the unclear 'summarize' semantics leave a minor gap in the overall completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the category parameter (optional, default all categories) and the inclusiveness of the date range, but it does not provide date format expectations or further clarify the date parameters beyond their names and types.

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 summarizes expenses by category within an inclusive date range, and the optional category behavior is explicit. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_expense and list_expenses by focusing on aggregation rather than modification or individual listing.

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 aggregate views of expenses, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_expenses or provide alternative guidance. The context is clear but not the boundary between tools.

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