read_expenses

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

With no annotations provided, the description itself must convey behavior. It clearly states this is a read operation, which is inherently non-destructive. The 'all' scope shows the extent of data returned. While no additional details like ordering or pagination are given, the output schema covers return structure, making this sufficient for a simple read tool.

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 three words: 'Read all expenses'. It is maximally concise, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word contributes meaning. There is zero redundancy.

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 simple, parameterless read tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It states the action and scope, and the output schema handles return value documentation. No further details are necessary.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully documents them. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but there is nothing to add. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description is adequate.

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 'Read all expenses' uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('expenses') with an explicit scope ('all'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like filter_by_category and summarize_expenses, which imply filtering and aggregation respectively.

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 phrase 'all expenses' implicitly tells when to use this tool (when the full list is needed), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. There is no direct comparison to sibling tools, so the guidance is 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.