summarize_infra_spending

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'latest PhilGEPS window' but does not explain what that window is, whether it's dynamic, or how the aggregation works. There is no mention of output format, even though an output schema exists.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action. No redundancy.

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?

The description is too minimal given the existence of an output schema and many sibling tools. It fails to explain the aggregation's scope, how 'latest window' is determined, or what the output represents (e.g., totals, breakdowns). The 'funding_source' no‑op hint is useful but insufficient for full completeness.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the description adds limited value beyond them. However, it does clarify that 'funding_source' is a no-op, which is helpful. Baseline 3 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 specifies the action ('aggregate') and the resource ('infrastructure procurement statistics over the latest PhilGEPS window'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_procurement' and 'get_procurement_summary' by focusing on aggregation over a specific window.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_procurement_summary' or 'search_procurement'. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or conditions under which this tool is preferred.

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