get_uncategorized_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does state that the tool aggregates counts by month, but it does not explicitly confirm it is read-only, mention permissions, or describe the return structure. The behavior is implied but not fully detailed.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every word earns its place, and it is free of unnecessary detail or repetition.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context. It explains the tool's grouping by month and its use case. However, it is ambiguous whether 'uncategorized' and 'needs-review' counts are reported combined or separately, and the return format is not explicitly stated. Minor gaps exist but are not critical.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'lookback_months' with a clear description and default value. The tool description adds the 'by month' context but does not elaborate on parameter syntax or additional semantics beyond what the schema states.

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 counts uncategorized and needs-review transactions by month, which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_transactions_needing_review, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'Useful for understanding categorization backlog' provides a clear use case and context for when to use the tool. It does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools, so it falls short of explicit exclusion guidance.

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