get_classification_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic summary action but does not disclose what metrics are computed (e.g., counts, totals), how the month and account_group filters behave, or the return format. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for a 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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every word contributes meaning, and the sentence structure is clear and direct.

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 three parameters, no annotations, and no explanation of the summary output or filters, the description is too minimal for reliable use. Although an output schema exists, the description still needs to convey how grouping and filters operate; it does not, leaving the tool incomplete for an agent.

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 explains the group_by enum values but fails to mention the month and account_group parameters or their filtering semantics. Only partial parameter understanding is achieved, lacking guidance on optional filters.

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 action (summarize) and resource (transactions), and explicitly lists the grouping options (counterparty, account, account_group), which brings it close to a 5. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like list_transactions, so it stops 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?

The description implies the tool is for summarizing transactions when grouping is needed, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like list_transactions or update_transactions_account. No exclusions or alternative references are given.

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