Get Spending Summary

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses key behaviors: fetching all pages (pagination), inclusive date handling with defaults for missing values, and that expenses are positive magnitudes. It also clarifies that invalid group_by values produce a single group. This is valuable context not present in annotations.

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 concise and well-structured. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a clear Args section and behavioral note. No redundant or filler content.

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 existing output schema and annotations, the description covers essential aspects: pagination, defaults, grouping behavior, and sign convention. It is complete enough for an agent to correctly invoke the tool without additional lookup.

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 fully compensates. It explains each parameter: start_date inclusive and format accepted, end_date same with default behavior, and group_by with allowed values and fallback behavior. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw 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 summarizes income, expenses, and net by category, account, or month. This is a specific verb (summarize) with a clear resource and grouping dimensions, distinguishing it from siblings like get_transactions (which lists transactions) and get_cashflow.

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 implies usage when aggregate summaries are needed but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. It lacks explicit routing guidance such as 'use this for totals, get_transactions for line items.'

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