get_spending_analytics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the output concept (total spend and income) but does not reveal aggregation behavior, whether the result is read-only, how income is combined with spending, or whether the calculation includes/excludes any transaction types. 'Get' implies read-only, but richer detail is needed for full transparency.

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 efficient sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and the return scope immediately clarified in parentheses. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 tool has one simple parameter and no output schema, so the description does need to explain what is returned; it does say 'total spend & income for a month.' Still, it omits useful details like whether the response contains separate spend and income fields or a net value, and the absence of any sibling alternatives guidance makes the context slightly incomplete.

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 100%, so the yearMonth parameter is already well-documented with format and example. The description's 'for a month' aligns conceptually with yearMonth but adds no substantive meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 resource ('monthly spending analytics') and clarifies the return concept: 'total spend & income for a month.' This differentiates it from sibling list tools like list_spendings and list_incomes by signaling an aggregated analytics view rather than raw item listings.

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 phrase 'for a month' gives clear temporal context, and the analytics framing implies it should be used for aggregated monthly totals rather than detailed transactions. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_spendings or create_spending, leaving some selection logic to inference.

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