shelter_coach_daily

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the bar for additional disclosure. The description adds that the tip is personalized and based on recent spending, which is a useful data-dependency signal, but it does not explain behavior when spending data is unavailable or what the response contains.

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 one clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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 read-only tool with strong annotations and one well-documented optional parameter, the description covers the core behavior adequately. It omits mention of the optional category parameter's effect and the exact return format, but the schema covers the parameter and 'tip' reasonably implies the output.

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 input schema fully covers the single optional parameter with a clear enum and description, so the description does not need to repeat it. The description adds no category-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Get today's personalized financial coaching tip') and clarifies it is based on recent spending. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tool shelter_coach_advice, which may overlap in purpose.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, conditions, or how it differs from shelter_coach_advice or other coach-related tools.

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