Summarize infrastructure spending

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the temporal constraint of 'latest PhilGEPS window' but does not disclose other behavioral details, such as how the window is determined or whether aggregation includes filtering effects. This adds some value without being rich.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the action ('Aggregate'). Every word contributes without filler, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the presence of a full output schema and strong annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. It clearly states the core purpose, but leaves domain-specific terms like 'PhilGEPS window' undefined and does not clarify aggregation granularity. These gaps are partially mitigated by the schema and structure.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including the special note that funding_source is a no-op. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb 'aggregate' and clearly identifies the resource 'infrastructure procurement statistics' with an explicit scope ('over the latest PhilGEPS window'). This differentiates it from siblings like search_procurement and get_procurement_summary, which focus on searching or general procurement summaries.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is given. The purpose implies it is for summarizing infrastructure spending, but there is no direction on when it should be preferred over similar sibling tools like get_procurement_summary. This is adequate but not explicit.

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