summarize

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

The description adds the behavioral detail that the date range is inclusive, which is useful. With no annotations, the burden is on the description, but it does not disclose what the summary contains (e.g., totals, counts), what happens if category is null, or how results are formatted. It provides some but not rich behavioral context.

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?

A single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. No unnecessary words, and it efficiently conveys the core purpose.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently detailed. It omits return value information (what a summary looks like), date format expectations, and how the optional category parameter affects behavior. Sibling tools are listed but not referenced as alternatives. The description is too thin 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%, so the description must compensate. It references 'category' and 'date range' but gives no format, types, or semantics for start_date and end_date. The optional category behavior is not explained. The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter names.

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 verb 'summarize' and the resource 'expenses by category', with a specific scope of 'inclusive date range'. This differentiates from sibling tools add_expense and list_expenses, which are about creating and listing, not aggregating.

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 intended use is implied as a way to get a summarized view of expenses, contrasting with listing individual expenses. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, nor are alternatives named.

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