spending-by-payee

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the return format (JSON) and unit (integer cents), which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about permissions, sorting order, pagination, or how ties/defaults behave, leaving substantial gaps for a report 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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the return-format note. Every clause earns its place.

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 5-parameter report tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and the amount unit but not the shape of the ranked output (fields per payee, ordering, tie-breaking). It is adequate but not complete given the absence of structured return documentation.

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 every parameter is already documented. The description adds only the income-direction nuance ('received from') and the cents unit, which are marginal additions over the schema - consistent with the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a specific verb (rank) and resource (payees) plus the metric (money spent/received), which clearly separates it from get-payees (list) and spending-by-category (grouped differently). It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it falls short of full 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as spending-by-category or get-payees, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. Usage can only be inferred from the resource name.

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