Search 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 states the search scope (notes and tags) but does not disclose whether the search is case-insensitive, whether full-text implies partial matches, whether it returns only accessible expenses, or whether it is entirely read-only (though 'search' implies it). The description repeats the schema's parameter semantics without adding behavioral context like pagination, ordering, or potential rate limits.

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?

A single, upfront, and well-structured sentence that conveys the tool's core function in seven words. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or 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?

Given the tool's relative simplicity and the presence of an output schema (which defines the return shape), the description is adequate in scoping the tool, but it omits behavioral details that as a result quality (e.g., whether it matches partial words, case sensitivity) and any note about performance or limits. It also does not link to any alternative of supporting the description is borderline acceptable but has clear gaps.

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 both parameters are already documented with meanings. The description's phrase 'across expense notes and tags' adds nothing beyond the query parameter's description ('Search term to look for in the 'note' and 'tags' fields'), so it does not enhance parameter understanding. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the specific action (full-text search), resource (expenses), and scope (notes and tags). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_expenses, which presumably lists all expenses, since search is explicitly full-text. The meaning is unambiguous.

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 tool is clearly meant for full-text searching of expenses, so its use is implied by the description. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose it over list_expenses or other expense retrieval tools, and no mention that it's for finding expenses when you don't know the expense ID. The description implies the use case but does not provide boundaries or alternatives.

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