get_savings_summary

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

With no annotations, the description provides good context: it tracks lifecycle states (open, acted on, verified, dismissed) and indicates it aggregates data. It implies a read-only query. However, it could explicitly state that it does not modify data or require special permissions.

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 concise and front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, second paragraph explains lifecycle, third provides examples. Every sentence is useful with no waste.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns. It covers the dashboard concept and lifecycle. However, it does not specify time range or update frequency, which could be useful for a summary tool.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description compensates by explaining the output semantics (dashboard content, lifecycle stages). This adds value beyond the empty schema.

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 shows a realized-savings dashboard with amounts recommended, acted on, and verified saved. It also explains the lifecycle from open to dismissed/verified. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_savings_ledger (detailed ledger) and list_savings_recommendations (individual recommendations).

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 examples implicitly suggest high-level summary questions, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor exclusions. The description does not mention when not to use it or provide alternative tool suggestions.

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