bank.summarize_spending

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the lack of transaction detail, which is a behavioral trait, but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, permission requirements, or specifics like whether pending transactions are included. This is a moderate disclosure at best.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place, and it efficiently communicates the tool's primary purpose and one key limitation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The tool is relatively simple and the description covers the main function, but it lacks definitions of terms like 'net' and does not clarify date inclusivity or account context, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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 for the missing parameter guidance. The description only hints at 'date range' (mapping to date_from/date_to) but fails to explain institution or account_uid. This leaves the agent to infer their meaning without additional context.

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 uses a specific verb 'aggregate' and clearly identifies the resource (spending) and scope (date range). It also states 'no transaction detail', which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like bank.list_transactions_summary and bank.list_transactions_detailed.

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 when to use this tool: when aggregate totals are needed. The phrase 'no transaction detail' provides a subtle exclusion, hinting that transaction-level tools should be used for details. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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