ofw_get_expense_totals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes only the '(owed/paid)' characterization of the returned totals; it says nothing about scope (date range, per-child breakdown), freshness, or auth requirements.

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 phrase with no filler, which is appropriately sized for a zero-argument read tool. It is arguably too terse, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering only safety, the description should explain what the totals cover (time window, per-child or per-category breakdown). Because it does not, an agent cannot predict the scope of the returned summary.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter syntax or defaults are needed.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('OurFamilyWizard expense summary totals') and narrows it with '(owed/paid)'. It is distinguishable from ofw_list_expenses by the 'summary totals' scope, though it never names that sibling to sharpen the contrast.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; the agent must infer from the phrase 'summary totals' that this is an aggregate view rather than the itemized list returned by ofw_list_expenses. No prerequisites, scope, or alternatives are stated.

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