summarize

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool aggregates/group by category and treats the date range as inclusive, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, whether any side effects occur, or any permission/rate-limit details.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes: 'Summarize' states the operation, 'expenses by category' defines the grouping, and 'inclusive date range' clarifies the temporal boundary.

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 simple aggregation tool with full schema coverage and an output schema present, the description is nearly complete. It is missing explicit read-only confirmation and usage differentiation from sibling tools, but these are minor given the clarity of the core operation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description reinforces that category is a filter and dates are inclusive, but adds no new parameter detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Summarize') and resource ('expenses') with a clear aggregation dimension ('by category') and temporal scope ('within an inclusive date range'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_expenses or export_expenses, which imply line-item or export behavior.

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 when to use the tool: when a category-level summary of expenses in a date range is needed. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with list_expenses or export_expenses, nor does it state when not to use it. The usage context is clear but no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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