get_expense_summary

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the aggregation behavior ('aggregates documents per counterparty/type/classification') and the decoding of classification codes, and implies a read-only operation via 'Fetch'. However, it does not mention pagination, error handling, or other operational behaviors, leaving some gaps.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. It is free of filler, and every phrase adds value—including the source, aggregation details, and the decoding behavior.

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?

With a comprehensive schema (100% parameter coverage) and an output schema present, the description is sufficient for understanding the tool's behavior. It covers the source, aggregation, and classification decoding. It does not explain pagination explicitly, but the max_results parameter description covers that, making the overall context complete.

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 provides 100% coverage for all four parameters, so the description is not required to explain them. The description adds minor context about how results are grouped, but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema, which the schema already handles well.

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 the specific verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'EXPENSE bookings per classification from myDATA e-books (RequestMyExpenses)', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_income_summary and get_received_documents. The additional detail about aggregation per counterparty/type/classification further clarifies its exact function.

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 does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the clear focus on EXPENSE bookings and the sibling tool names imply its usage context. It provides clear context that this is for expense summaries, without explicit exclusions.

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