List Expenses

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the operation is a read-only listing and that the date range is inclusive, which is useful. However, it omits important behavioral traits such as default sort order, pagination behavior, and how filters interact, leaving operational uncertainty.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, scope, and existence of optional filters efficiently, earning its place without padding.

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 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and a simple list operation, the description plus schema is sufficient to construct a valid call. However, it is thin on operational context such as default limits, sorting, and how this tool is meant to be used relative to the sibling search_expenses, so it is only minimally viable.

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 already documents all 10 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond calling some filters 'optional', and the schema already conveys the same information more precisely.

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 uses a specific verb ('list') with a clear resource ('expenses') and adds a date-range scope, making the core purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from single-record tools like get_expense, but it does not differentiate from the sibling search_expenses, whose name suggests overlapping list/search behavior.

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 gives a basic context (listing by date range with optional filters) but provides no guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings like search_expenses or summarize_expenses. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing cues, leaving the agent to guess.

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