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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a read-only operation, and the description's 'list' action is consistent. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination, sorting, or response format. It does add the allowed category values, which is useful but not a behavioral trait. The description does not contradict annotations.

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 sentence that states the core action and optional filters, followed by a concise list of valid categories. Every element is relevant and directly informative, with no wasted words.

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 simple list operation, a read-only annotation, and a straightforward schema, the description covers the essentials: what is listed, the available filters, and valid categories. The output structure is not specified, but it is easily inferable for a list operation. No major gaps are present.

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?

The schema provides three parameters (year, category, property_id) with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates by mapping these to 'bien, année et catégorie' and by enumerating the valid category values (property_tax, insurance, etc.). It does not detail the year format or property_id semantics, but adds significant meaning beyond the bare parameter names.

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 identifies the tool's function: 'Liste les charges déductibles de l'utilisateur' with optional filters by property, year, and category. The verb 'list' and resource 'expenses' distinguish it from sibling tools like get_expense (single expense) and create_expense (creation).

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 use for listing expenses with optional filters, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_expense for individual expenses or create_expense for adding. No when-not-to-use or alternative references are provided, making the guidance implied rather than explicit.

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