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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only' is largely redundant. It does add the underlying endpoint (GET /expense) and the identity of the returned fields, which is mild extra context, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result caps, or account scoping beyond the 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?

One front-loaded sentence carries the substance, followed by two short fragments. Nothing is padded, though 'Read-only' duplicates the annotation and 'GET /expense' is of marginal use to an agent, so it stops just short of ideal.

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 no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates the fields a caller will receive and the ordering, and pagination is fully handled by the schema. The only remaining gap is the absence of any guidance on filtering or scope limits of the listing.

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% – skip, sort, and limit are each fully documented in the schema, including the 1-100 limit range and the next_skip chaining hint. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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?

Specific verb ('List') plus resource ('expenses'), with an explicit enumeration of the returned fields (date, rental, category, amount, paid/unpaid) and the sort basis (creation date). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tokeet_get_expense (singular fetch) and the other list_* tools.

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 establishes the context (items in the account, ordered by creation date) but never states when to prefer this over tokeet_get_expense or how it relates to other listing tools. Usage is implied by 'List' rather than articulated, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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