ynab_analyze_spending

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by noting deterministic calculation and that aggregations use the complete fetched period. It does not contradict the readOnly, idempotent, or non-destructive hints. More detail on error handling or data limits would be beneficial.

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, no fluff. The first sentence clearly states the core function and options; the second adds a critical behavioral detail. Highly efficient.

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?

While the description covers the main purpose and grouping, it omits explanations for budget_id and include_transfers, and does not mention return structure (though output schema exists). More details on required parameters and result format would improve completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains group_by enum values and implies date range parameters, but budget_id and include_transfers are left unexplained. Partial coverage leaves gaps for a 5-parameter tool.

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 calculates income, spending, and net totals over an inclusive date range, grouped by category, payee, account, week, or month. This distinguishes it from siblings like ynab_list_transactions and ynab_compare_spending_periods.

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 usage via the grouping and date range options but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ynab_compare_spending_periods or ynab_list_transactions. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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