get_spend_log

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It states the return includes 'spending entries with totals and weekly averages,' which is adequate. But it doesn't disclose whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or any required permissions. A 3 is appropriate as it covers the basics but lacks depth.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with core purpose then usage advice. No fluff, every sentence adds value. Ideal for quick comprehension.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return structure. The single parameter is optional with default, so no missing detail. For a simple retrieval tool, this is nearly complete; missing only explicit mention of read-only nature (though implied).

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?

Schema coverage is 100% (the single 'weeks' parameter has a description). The description adds context about output format (totals, weekly averages) but does not enhance parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 returns 'spending history with weekly averages and totals,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'log_spend' (input) and other grocery tools by focusing on historical data. The use case mention further clarifies 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?

Explicitly tells when to use: 'reviewing grocery budget, tracking spending trends.' This provides clear context. However, it does not exclude when not to use or mention alternatives, though the sibling list exists and the context is sufficient for this simple tool.

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