get_spending_data

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 mentions 'optional filtering and pagination', which hints at read-only behavior and some operational traits, but it doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, structure). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 that front-loads the core purpose ('Get team member spending information') and adds brief context ('with optional filtering and pagination'). There's no wasted wording, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it could be slightly more structured if it included more usage details.

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?

Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 5 parameters, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and hints at behavior but fails to address key contextual elements like output format, error conditions, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a data retrieval tool with filtering and pagination, more detail is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'optional filtering and pagination', which loosely relates to parameters like 'searchTerm', 'page', and 'pageSize', but doesn't provide additional meaning or context. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('team member spending information'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'get_daily_usage_data' or 'get_team_members', which might also retrieve related data. The description is specific about what data is retrieved but lacks sibling distinction.

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 mentions 'optional filtering and pagination', which implies some context for usage, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_daily_usage_data' or 'get_team_members'. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios that warrant its use over siblings, leaving the agent with minimal direction.

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