List Expenses

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It discloses the optional date-range filter, a meaningful behavioral trait beyond the schema. However, it does not state read-only status, pagination behavior, ordering, or return format. For a simple list tool this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 exactly two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the filter option stated efficiently. No filler or redundant content, earning top marks.

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 low complexity and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It lacks an explicit output description, but for a list tool this is often understood. The absence of annotations is partially compensated by the clarity of the operation. Overall, it's sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100% for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a slight semantic by indicating that start_date/end_date form a date-range filter, which is helpful but minimal. No additional parameter meaning is provided beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('expense entries'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like add_expense, delete_expense, edit_expense, and list_credits. The purpose is unambiguous even without opening the schema.

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 implies usage (listing expenses) but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or sibling comparisons are provided, though the name and siblings make the context reasonably clear. It falls short of the explicit guidance seen in high-scoring examples.

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