get_transactions_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation but does not confirm idempotency, data freshness, or any potential side effects. For a tool that likely queries aggregated data, this lack of detail is a gap.

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 concise sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's core purpose and key outputs. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 hints at the return fields, it does not specify the output structure or format, especially given the lack of an output schema. Among many sibling summary tools, a more detailed explanation of the summary schema would improve completeness. The current description is adequate but leaves ambiguity.

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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to explain parameters. However, it adds value by describing the nature of the summary output (totals, averages, etc.), which compensates for the lack of output schema. A score of 4 is appropriate as it goes beyond the schema.

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's action ('Get aggregate transaction summary') and explicitly lists the components (totals, averages, counts, income, expenses), making it easy to understand what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_transactions (which returns raw transactions) and get_cashflow (which focuses on cash flow) by emphasizing aggregation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_cashflow_summary or get_aggregate_snapshots. Users must infer from the name and sibling context, but without explicit usage directions, the risk of misselection remains high.

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