График трат

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

The description adds several behavioral details beyond annotations: internal transfers are always excluded via config=allNotInner, max_chars caps the response and the header names any truncation, and the endpoint has only been verified with period=day and group_by=category. Annotations already confirm safety; the description enriches the operational picture.

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 longer than one sentence because there is genuinely complex behavioral context to convey. It is front-loaded: the first sentence states what the tool returns and which sibling to use instead. The later paragraphs are earned detail rather than padding.

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?

It covers the raw output shape, the canonical alternative tool, the internal-transfers exclusion, response truncation semantics, and the risk of unverified parameter values. It remains short of complete because the semantics of days and account_id are never explained, and those parameters will affect what the agent requests.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates: it explains max_chars fully and warns about period/group_by behavior, but does not explain days, period semantics, or what account_id controls beyond its empty default. The defaults hint at meaning, but important params remain under-documented.

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 states a clear verb and resource: returns raw JSON of expenses grouped by the bank. It also actively distinguishes itself from spending_categories and list_operations, so an agent can identify this tool without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to prefer spending_categories for ready-made category breakdowns and list_operations for a full transaction list including internal transfers. It also flags the only verified parameter combination and warns that other values may cause a 400.

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