get_spending

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the returned data (today/month/total spending and an estimated remaining balance), which implies a read-only operation, but it says nothing about freshness of data, currency, or whether the balance figure is an estimate derived from a budget — none of which is knowable elsewhere.

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?

One sentence with zero waste; the primary action and the returned figures are front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is the only source of information — and it does name the values returned. It stops short of clarifying units, currency, or the period boundary semantics, which leaves a small gap for an agent interpreting 'estimated remaining balance'.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, and the description correctly indicates that all figures are returned together rather than selected via an argument. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('spending') plus the scopes covered (today / this month / total, plus estimated remaining balance). Sibling tools (generate_image, check_connection) are unrelated domains, so differentiation is not needed.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this retrieves spending figures, but the description never says when to call it, what preconditions exist, or how the scopes relate (e.g., whether one call returns all three). No alternatives are named, though none of the siblings overlap.

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