summarize

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While the verb 'summarize' implicitly suggests a non-destructive read operation, the description does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, does not modify expenses, or what the response structure will be. The burden falls on the description and it only partially meets it.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. The verb, resource, grouping dimension, and date-range semantics are all delivered efficiently. Nothing extraneous.

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 tool's simplicity, the description is adequate but has notable gaps. With no output schema present, the description does not explain what the summarization returns, and there is no usage guidance to distinguish it from list_expenses. It covers the essentials of what the tool does but leaves output format and selection criteria undocumented.

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% and the schema provides no types or descriptions for any of the three parameters. The description does add some meaning — it reveals that the date range is inclusive and that category is the grouping dimension — which compensates partially. However, it does not clarify whether category is a filter or a pure grouping key, nor does it specify expected date formats, leaving real gaps.

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 ('Summarize') with a resource ('expenses') and states the grouping dimension ('by category') and scope ('inclusive date range'). This distinguishes it from siblings like add_expense and list_expenses, since summarizing implies aggregation. It could be clearer about what the aggregation output looks like (totals per category vs. overall totals), so it stops short of a 5.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The natural distinction from list_expenses (summarize aggregates, list enumerates) is left entirely implied, and there is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent must infer the appropriate use case.

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