get_spending_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the behavior (returning expense totals per category) and implies a read-only operation with no side effects. It does not mention potential exclusions (like pending transactions) or account scope, but for a summary getter, the description is adequately transparent.

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 sentence with no filler. It states the action, target, and date range efficiently, earning every word.

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 summary with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It implies the output structure (categories with totals) and the input constraints. More detail on whether it aggregates across all accounts or if there are filters would improve completeness, but it is adequate for calling the tool correctly.

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% — both start and end have format notes ('YYYY-MM-DD'). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so it does not enhance parameter understanding. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents parameters.

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 is specific and unambiguous: 'Get expense totals per category for a date range.' It names the verb (get), the resource (expense totals per category), and the scope (date range), making it distinct from sibling tools like list_transactions or get_net_worth_summary.

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 for expense summaries by category but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives such as get_account_overview_chart or search_transactions. There is no direct callout to a sibling tool or condition, so an agent must 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.