get_spend_log

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the safety burden is largely covered by structured data. The description adds a modest amount of value by outlining the return content (entries, totals, weekly averages), but says nothing about pagination, limits, or whether a logging entry is created elsewhere. Adequate but thin against an already-covered annotation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the USE WHEN cue. Minor redundancy: 'weekly averages' appears twice, which slightly dilutes an otherwise tight structure.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema and a covering readOnlyHint, the description gives enough: what it returns and when to reach for it. Only the absence of any pointer to the log_spend counterpart keeps it from being fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with a single optional parameter ('weeks', default 8) already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, range, or interpretation beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for full coverage 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 states a specific resource (spending history) and the shape of what it returns (entries with weekly averages and totals). It is clear and distinct from the write-side sibling log_spend, though it never explicitly names that counterpart, so it falls short of the 5-level sibling differentiation bar.

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?

'USE WHEN: reviewing grocery budget, tracking spending trends' gives concrete usage contexts that map onto the household/grocery sibling set. It omits any when-not guidance and does not point to log_spend as the alternative for recording spend, so it stops short of the explicit alternatives the 5-level rubric wants.

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