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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only behavior and mentions filtering and totals, which is helpful. However, it doesn't detail pagination, auth requirements, or default return behavior, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, then filter options, then relationship to siblings. No redundant information, every sentence earns its place.

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 and no output schema, the description provides the main purpose, filters, and sibling context. It omits response shape and pagination details, but for a list tool this is largely adequate. The mention of totals by category type gives some response insight.

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?

Since schema descriptions are empty (0% coverage), the description must compensate. It names dateFrom/dateTo, categoriaId, tipo (with enum values), and recurrente, giving meaning beyond the schema. It doesn't explain limit or apiKey, but these are generally self-explanatory.

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 states the tool lists operational expenses with their category and totals broken down by category type. It distinguishes itself from sibling income-side tools by explicitly naming finance_list_cobros/finance_list_payments, making the resource and scope unambiguous.

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?

It states this complements finance_list_cobros/finance_list_payments (income side), implying use for expense-related queries. It also lists filter options, giving context for when to use. However, it doesn't explicitly state exclusions, but the sibling reference is clear enough to guide tool selection.

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