You're asking if you can verify that $S = \sum_{k=0}^n f(n,k)$, only knowing $S$. The answer is no. Think if I asked you to show that $x=5$, but I didn't tell you anything about $x$. You couldn't unless I told you the value of $x$.
It's the same thing with your question. Without summing the terms or evaluating a closed form, I know nothing about the value of $\sum_{k=0}^n f(n,k)$.
Now there are some observations you can make, but they don't work $100\%$ of the time.
Look at the signs. If $S>0$, but $f(n,k)<0,\ \forall n,k$, then there is certainly no equality. More generally, if $\text{sgn}(S)\ne\text{sgn}(f(n,k)),\ \forall n,k \implies S \ne \sum_{k=0}^n f(n,k)$.
Look at the behavior. If $S<f(n,0)$ and $f'(n,k)>0,\ \forall k>0$, then there is no equality.
In response to your comment on the question:
without knowing $f(n,k)$, there's no general solution to solve this without calculating the sum. You can find properties of $f(n,k)$ that you can leverage to answer your problem. To show this I'll address the example you've given
I have a sum involving floor, sqrt, ceil
The best you're going to get here is approximations. Take, $$ \sum_{k=a}^n \lfloor c\cdot k\rfloor $$ There's no closed-form for this, so the best we can do is bound it very tight. See my my question here, where I show $$ \sum_{k=a}^n \lfloor c\cdot k\rfloor \approx \frac{(a-n-1)(ac+cn-1)}{-2} $$ is a very accurate approximation. Even for large $n$.
This is just an example of approximations you can make and unfortunately, without calculating the series or a closed form, probably the best you can do is exploit properties of the sum.