get_spending

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what data is returned but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the schema parameters, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence and listing key data points in the second. Both sentences add value by specifying the scope and output details. There's no unnecessary repetition or fluff, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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's moderate complexity (fetching billing data with pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers what data is returned but lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, or output structure. It's adequate for a basic read operation but doesn't fully compensate for the missing structured information, leaving room for improvement in transparency and guidelines.

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 has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('page' and 'allPages') with their types and defaults. The description doesn't add any semantic details about these parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining pagination context or when to use 'allPages'. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current billing cycle spending for all team members'), and details what information it provides (spend in dollars, included vs overage, fast premium requests, and spend limits). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_billing_groups' or 'get_daily_usage', which might also relate to billing or usage data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'get_billing_groups' or 'get_daily_usage', leaving the agent to infer usage context based solely on the tool name and description.

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