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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content context (nonbillable costs included, billable IDs linked) but says nothing about ordering, pagination behavior, or what a returned expense 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Its brevity is efficient, though it leaves real gaps that a slightly longer description could have closed.

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?

With four optional parameters, pagination semantics, no output schema, and only 25% schema coverage, the description does not tell an agent how to page, how to scope by client, or in what order results come back. For a listing tool whose output shape is undocumented, this is materially incomplete.

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 only 25% — only business_id is documented in the schema, while limit, offset, and client_id carry no descriptions. The tool description mentions no parameters at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap on pagination and client filtering.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (recorded expenses), and adds scope detail: nonbillable costs and linked billable item IDs are included. That distinguishes it from a billables-only listing, but it never names the sibling it differs from (billables_list, expense_record), so an agent still has to infer the boundary.

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 scope wording ('including nonbillable costs') implies this is the general expense listing rather than a filtered billables view, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as billables_list or expenses via expense_record. Usage is left to inference.

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