spending-by-category

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and 'breakdown by category' communicates aggregation behavior. However, it does not disclose date inclusivity, whether income is treated differently, category rollup behavior, or what the response contains.

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 front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It is concise, though the conciseness comes at the cost of omitting important usage and parameter details.

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 four undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin to fully prepare an agent. An agent can infer the basic intent but cannot confidently know how accountId or includeIncome affect results, what date formats are expected, or what the return structure looks like.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'date range', which partially maps to startDate and endDate, but it provides no meaning for accountId or includeIncome, and no format or default information for any parameter.

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 action ('Get spending breakdown by category') and a clear resource and scope ('specified date range'). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-grouped-categories' or 'monthly-summary', so it is clear but not fully distinguishing.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer 'get-grouped-categories' or 'monthly-summary', nor does it explain any exclusions or prerequisites.

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