get_category_breakdown

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It does not mention what happens when 'month' is omitted (though the schema says it's optional), nor does it describe return format, pagination, or other behavioral traits. The description's focus on a month without addressing optionality creates an information gap.

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 exceptionally concise, using a single phrase that conveys the tool's core purpose and the required month format. Every word is meaningful, and there is no extraneous information. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

For a simple tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too incomplete. It lacks usage guidance, behavioral details (especially the optional month parameter), and any description of the return structure. Given the presence of many sibling tools, more context is needed for correct selection and invocation.

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 description adds semantic value by specifying the expected format for the 'month' parameter as YYYY-MM, which is not present in the schema. However, it does not clarify that the parameter is optional or explain the behavior when omitted, so it only partially compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 the tool's function: retrieving per-category spend totals for a month. It uses a specific verb ('get' implied) and a distinct resource ('category breakdown'), and specifies the month format. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'subcategory_breakdown' or 'query_transactions', so it lacks direct sibling differentiation.

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?

The description implies usage: use this tool when you need monthly per-category spend totals. It provides clear context (month in YYYY-MM format). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, leaving the usage guidance at an implied rather than explicit level.

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