search_expenses

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

With no annotations, the description is the only behavioral signal. It does add useful context: search is free-text, matches merchant and note, and spans all time. But it does not disclose matching semantics like case sensitivity, partial matching, result ordering, or whether limit controls result truncation. Still, nothing about the behavior is hidden in a misleading way.

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 sentence that packs the essential information with no filler. The verb, resource, matching fields, and temporal scope are all front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers the core behavior well. But the presence of query_expenses among siblings creates ambiguity that the description does not resolve, and the limit parameter's effect is not clarified. These are real but not severe 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?

The input schema names parameters but provides no descriptions, and schema coverage is 0%. The description adds meaning to the text parameter by specifying that it searches 'merchant and note'. However, limit is left undocumented, so the description only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 names a specific action ('search'), a specific resource ('expenses'), the fields searched ('merchant and note'), and the time scope ('over all time'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like add_expense or summarize, and the free-text qualifier helps differentiate it from query_expenses.

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 conveys when it is appropriate to use: when a free-text search across merchant and note is needed. However, it does not explicitly compare with query_expenses or state when one should be preferred over the other, leaving that routing to inference.

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