spending_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates the tool returns aggregated data but does not explicitly state it is read-only, describe potential side effects, or address performance considerations for large date ranges.

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 two sentences but contains redundancy (first sentence repeats the tool name). It is short but could be more concise by merging the first two statements.

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 should provide a clearer picture of the return structure. It only vaguely mentions totals, averages, and breakdowns without describing the shape of the response. It also does not cover edge cases like empty results or error conditions.

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?

All five parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only mentioning that results include totals, averages, and breakdowns, which is not specified in the schema. This adds some value but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 retrieves a spending summary with flexible grouping by vendor, month, week, or day, and returns totals, averages, and breakdowns. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like spending_trends or top_vendors, and the repetition of 'Get spending summary' reduces clarity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as spending_trends or top_vendors. It also lacks prerequisites or context about typical use cases.

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