Analyze Spending Patterns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it is safe. The description adds value by detailing that the tool 'combines multiple data sources' and produces forecasts, budget analysis, and account usage patterns, which are not implied by the annotation alone.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses bullet points for clarity. However, the 'Args' section is redundant with the schema and could be removed to reduce length. Every sentence serves a purpose, but the structure is not maximally tight.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the key analytical aspects (trends, forecasts, budget performance, account usage). No critical gaps are apparent for a read-only analytical tool, though it could mention any limits on data scope.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It restates the parameter names and defaults (already in schema) but adds little additional meaning. For example, it says include_forecasting is 'whether to include spending forecasts', adding no nuance beyond the parameter name. The description does not explain valid ranges, formats, or effects.

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 performs 'intelligent spending pattern analysis with trend forecasting' and lists specific insights (monthly trends, account usage, budget performance, forecasts). This distinguishes it from simpler siblings like get_spending_summary, though it could be more explicit about its comparative advantage.

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_spending_summary or get_cashflow. It lacks explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer context.

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