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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real context on top: newest-first ordering and the fact that responses are wrapped as { data, pagination } when more pages exist. That envelope detail is behavior an agent cannot get from the schema, since there is no output schema. Missing are rate-limit or auth hints, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource definition and sort order, then the response shape. The "Quaderno API: GET /expenses" line is the weakest part — it doesn't change agent behavior — but it is a single clause and not enough to call the description padded.

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?

For a read-only six-filter list tool with a fully described schema, the essential gaps are covered: what the resource is, ordering, and the pagination envelope in the absence of an output schema. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing, though a word on picking between filters and on the get_expense sibling would make it complete.

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 100%, so all six parameters (q, date, contact, page, per_page, created_before) are already documented, including the note that page is legacy and created_before is preferred. The description adds nothing further about parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ("List expenses") and disambiguates the domain term by glossing expenses as "bills you received," which separates them from invoices/receipts in the sibling set. Sort order (newest first) is also given. It doesn't explicitly route against quaderno_get_expense for single-record retrieval, but the list/get distinction is self-evident.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the collection endpoint and that filters live in the schema, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of the single-record alternative, and no guidance on which filter to reach for (e.g. q vs contact). Adequate but with clear gaps.

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