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

The flat '$0.30 per call' pricing is genuinely useful disclosure for an agent deciding whether to call a paid endpoint, and it goes beyond what the annotations declare. However, the description says nothing about output format, size limits on the input document, or how large receipt batches are handled; annotations only cover the safety profile (non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent).

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 actual capability, then price, then audience. The third sentence largely restates the first ('A clean expense summary') and is the only real waste.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should say more about what comes back — structure, level of detail, or whether periods are inferred or must be present in the document text. With one fully documented parameter and annotations present, this is adequate but leaves a real gap for a generation tool.

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% for the single 'document' parameter, so the schema already carries the load and a baseline 3 applies. The description adds that output is grouped by category and period, but gives no hint about expected input format (free text vs. structured rows) or practical size constraints.

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 plus the aggregation dimensions ('Summarise expenses by category and period'), which is far better than a tautology. It does not distinguish itself from near-siblings such as fikra_categorise_expenses or fikra_generate_procurement_report, so an agent must 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 audience note ('for a manager or accountant') implies a downstream-consumer use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative. Nothing tells an agent whether to categorise first with fikra_categorise_expenses or whether raw receipts belong in fikra_process_receipt.

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