get_finance_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 communicates that the tool is read-only ('retorna') and specifies scope ('active accounts'), which is good. However, it doesn't mention potential edge cases like how pending transactions are handled, whether the result is a single value or structured breakdown, or any pagination limits. This is average transparency for a simple summary tool.

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, focused sentence that starts with the verb 'Retorna' and clearly states the output. It contains no filler or repetition, and every word adds value. This is highly concise and well-structured.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what it returns and the scope (active accounts). It doesn't detail the response format, but given the simplicity, it's reasonably complete. It could have mentioned that this is an aggregate summary as opposed to a list, but that is already implied by the word 'total'.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). According to the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't, which is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: it returns the total balance of all active accounts and the totals of expenses and income. This is a specific, read-only summary operation that is distinct from related siblings like list_finance_accounts and list_transactions, which list individual records. However, it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 such as list_finance_accounts, list_transactions, or others. It only states the function, leaving the agent to infer usage context. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to siblings, so the guidance is limited.

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