query_expenses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does reveal default month behavior and performance/cost characteristics. However, it omits other behavioral traits such as the default limit of 50, ordering, or how filters combine, which are not covered by annotations.

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 two sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the alternative-tool guidance is concise and direct.

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?

The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, and the description covers the primary use case and cost guidance. Nevertheless, for an 8-parameter tool with no annotations, it lacks guidance on filter semantics and the relationship to search_expenses, making it only minimally complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only adds meaning for date parameters via 'Defaults to the current month.' The other seven parameters (tags, limit, category, merchant, max/min_amount) receive no additional semantics beyond their names and types.

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 the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'individual expenses', immediately distinguishing it from aggregation tools like summarize. 'Defaults to the current month' further clarifies the exact scope of the operation.

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?

It explicitly names summarize() as the alternative when totals are needed, and gives a cost rationale ('far cheaper'). It also implies default date behavior, which signals a common use case. However, it does not contrast with search_expenses, leaving some ambiguity between list and search tools.

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