spending_by_category

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Analyze spending broken down by category' without explaining what the output looks like, how categories are determined, whether any data is written or exported, or any other side effects. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 a single, concise sentence with no waste. It front-loads the core action and scope. While extremely terse, it does earn its place by stating the primary purpose, though it could benefit from a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool takes a single parameter and has no output schema, but with no annotations, the description must carry more weight. It fails to disclose the return format, aggregation details, or how this tool differs from closely related siblings. The context is insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke the tool and interpret the result.

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 schema already provides a description for csvPath ('Path to Amex CSV file'), and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema defines. Thus, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Analyze spending broken down by category' clearly identifies the verb (analyze), resource (spending), and the specific scope (broken down by category). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'analyze_vendor' (vendor breakdown) and 'find_anomalies' (anomaly detection). Though 'analyze' is generic, the category breakdown adds specificity.

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 it should be used when a category-level breakdown of spending is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'analyze_amex_spending' or 'analyze_vendor'. There is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tools are preferred for different scenarios.

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