transactions_by_category

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states the output ordering (descending by spending) but omits crucial behavioral traits: what 'summarise activity' means (counts, totals?), what happens with empty results, or whether it requires authentication. The lack of detail leaves the agent uninformed about side effects or limits.

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 concise sentence, but conciseness comes at the cost of completeness. It could be restructured to include parameter context without being verbose. An average score is appropriate.

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 tool has three optional parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to use the parameters to filter or vary the summary. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but parameter information is critically missing.

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 explain the three parameters (date_to, date_from, entry_types). It fails to do so, offering no clue about their purpose, format, or default behavior. This is a major gap for agent decision-making.

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 states it summarizes activity per category and orders by spending descending. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like search_transactions or monthly_spending by focusing on category-level aggregation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., monthly_spending might also categorize). No when-not-to-use or prerequisites mentioned. The context is implied but not explicit.

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