Counterparty Summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, but it only states the operation and metric. It does not disclose aggregation defaults, time-range semantics, sorting, limits, or that this is a read-only aggregate rather than a transaction-level detail tool.

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 a single clear sentence that is front-loaded with the action and key output. It contains no fluff or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 optional-parameter aggregate tool, the description is minimally adequate, but it leaves gaps: no default time window, no default top_n behavior, and no explicit statement of the return shape given that no output schema exists. Slightly more context would make it safe for an agent to call without assumptions.

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 input schema fully documents all three parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter detail. The description does not help clarify top_n ordering or timestamp semantics, but the schema already handles parameter meaning.

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 'Get' and names the resource ('aggregated volume and counts by counterparty'), making the action and grouping clear. It is distinguishable from the sibling tools by the counterparty grouping, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 guidance about when to use this tool instead of get_portfolio_overview, list_transactions, or the other siblings. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative conditions are stated, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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