dough_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses output content but lacks details on scope (e.g., whether it aggregates all accounts), caching, or error behavior. It adequately indicates a read operation.

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, efficient sentence with no fluff. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing fields explicitly).

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 lists key output items (total balance, income, spending, budgeted, RTA) but does not specify the structure (e.g., if it's a flat object or nested). It is adequate but not fully detailed.

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%, so the schema already describes the month parameter. The description adds minor context ('this month's') but no additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 it provides a 'compact financial snapshot' with specific elements (total balance, income, spending, budgeted, Ready to Assign), distinguishing it from sibling tools that target individual areas like accounts, bills, or budget.

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 the tool is for a quick overview but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like dough_accounts or dough_budget. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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