spend_by_category_tool

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It states it aggregates by category and uses date range, but fails to mention whether it is read-only, required permissions, or returns all categories. The basic behavior is clear but incomplete for a mutation-ambiguous 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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. No wasted words; front-loaded with action and resource.

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 tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and parameter format. It could mention that it returns aggregated data but the output schema likely covers that. Slight gap in specifying whether all categories are included.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by specifying the date format ('YYYY-MM-DD') for the start and end parameters, adding meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not clarify if parameters are required or default behavior when omitted.

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 aggregates spending by category over a date range, specifying verb ('aggregate') and resource ('spending by category'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_transactions' and 'monthly_summary_tool' but does not explicitly differentiate 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to prefer 'monthly_summary_tool' or 'get_transactions'. The description only implies usage for category-based period analysis without exclusions or context.

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