get_annual_overview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that months without data are omitted and what the response contains, but never states that this is a read-only operation, makes no mention of permissions or performance considerations, and does not describe pagination or ordering.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the scope ('Visão anual') and then lists the returned fields. Nothing is wasted, though the long comma-separated enumeration is slightly harder to scan than a structured list.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return content, and it does so thoroughly by naming every metric and the year totals. For a one-parameter read tool this is largely sufficient, with only the omission of read-only/permission framing and ordering behavior keeping it from being complete.

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?

Only one parameter (year) exists and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself supplying the example '2026'. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter (e.g., valid range or handling of future years), so baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource (annual overview) and enumerates the exact metrics returned per month (income, fixed/budgeted expenses, savings, extras, net balance, closing balance) plus year totals. It is readily distinguishable from get_month_summary by scope, though it relies on an implied verb ('Visão anual') rather than an explicit one.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_month_summary or get_month_summary/list_months. A competent agent can infer annual-vs-monthly scope, but the description states no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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