summarize_operations

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the aggregate outputs (count, total inflow, total outflow, net per bucket, grand totals) and notes that filtering applies. It does not explicitly state that the file is not modified, but the read-only nature is strongly implied by 'aggregate.'

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 sentences deliver the action, the grouping options, the output summary, and realistic use cases without filler. The key behavior is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 description compensates for the missing output schema by enumerating the returned aggregates and grand totals, and it covers the filtering/grouping behavior. It is complete enough for invocation, though it could more explicitly connect the file_path requirement or clarify absence of mutation given there are no annotations.

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 89%, so the schema already explains the parameters. The description adds the grouping concept that maps to group_by and 'filtered set' for filters, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides for the individual parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Aggregate operations' with explicit grouping dimensions (category, account, month). It also names the output shape, distinguishing this from sibling tools like list_operations and read_statement_header.

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?

It provides clear use cases: 'building a monthly expense report' and 'checking VAT-relevant categories.' However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or point to list_operations for raw detail, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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