expense_summary_report

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. 'Generate expense summary report' gives no information about what the tool actually does behaviorally: whether it creates a file, returns data, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what format the output takes. This is inadequate for a tool with parameters and no output schema.

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 extremely concise at just three words, which could be appropriate if it were informative. However, this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently front-loaded with useful information. It's structured as a single phrase but lacks the substance needed for a tool with parameters.

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 complexity (3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does beyond the name, provides no behavioral context, offers no parameter guidance, and gives no indication of output format. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 3 parameters (startDate, endDate, groupBy) are documented in the schema. The description provides no parameter information whatsoever—it doesn't mention date ranges, grouping options, or any input requirements. While 0 parameters would warrant a baseline of 4, with 3 undocumented parameters, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 'Generate expense summary report' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'expense_summary_report' without adding meaningful specificity. It mentions the resource ('expense summary report') but lacks a clear verb beyond 'generate' and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling expense tools like 'expense_1099_report', 'expense_budget_vs_actual', or 'expense_spending_trends'.

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. With numerous sibling tools in the expense and analytics categories (e.g., 'expense_1099_report', 'expense_spending_trends', 'analytics_executive_dashboard'), there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be preferred over other reporting or analysis tools.

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