summarize

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 reveals that the tool summarizes expense data by category, but it does not clarify whether the category parameter filters or groups results, what happens when category is null, whether the operation is read-only, or what the returned summary looks like.

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, compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the operation and grouping dimension, though the word 'that' is slightly ambiguous and could have been replaced with 'specified' or 'given'.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool confidently. It leaves the category behavior ambiguous and omits date format and output-shape details.

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 startdate/enddate have empty schemas, so the description must compensate. It adds only the notions of 'date range' and 'category', but it does not explain parameter formats, the meaning of the optional category default, or how the date range boundaries are handled.

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 states a specific verb ('summarize'), a resource ('expenses'), and the grouping dimension ('by category') with a date range, which clearly conveys an aggregation purpose. It is distinct from list_expenses and add_expense by its verb, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 this tool is for aggregate reporting on expenses within a date range, rather than listing individual expenses or adding them. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention the sibling tools.

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