get_period_summary

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

Without annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the output (actuals and pace indicator) and the rationale for the pace metric. However, it does not specify whether the tool is read-only, how it calculates the pace, or if it requires a budget_id for the pace calculation.

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 (two sentences), front-loaded with the main action (returns actuals and pace indicator), and provides necessary context about the pace indicator. No unnecessary words.

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 absence of an output schema, the description partially explains the return structure but lacks specifics (e.g., format of actuals and pace, whether currency amounts or ratios). It also does not clarify how optional parameters like 'date' and 'budget_id' affect the result. Adequate but not thorough.

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% – description does not explain any parameters. Only 'period' is implicitly described via the enum values in the schema and the field list in the description. 'date' and 'budget_id' are not mentioned at all, leaving their semantics unclear.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns spending actuals for a period (daily/weekly/monthly) and a pace indicator prorated from the monthly budget. It specifies the valid period values and the purpose of the pace indicator as a substitute for nonexistent budgets. The tool is distinct from siblings which deal with categories, budgets, or transactions.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_transactions or get_categories. The description implies it aggregates spending for a period, but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate.

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