list_expenses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately states the core behavior (list with optional filter), but omits details such as whether recurring expenses are included, ordering or pagination behavior, and any read-only assurances.

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 front-loads the main action and contains no filler. It is minimally sized yet sufficiently informative for a simple list tool.

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 one-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: no mention of pagination, sorting, whether recurring expenses are included, or when to use alternatives like summarize_expenses or export_expenses_csv.

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 has no description for 'category' (0% coverage). The description adds meaning by explaining that category is a filter and that omitting it lists all expenses, compensating for the schema gap. It does not specify allowed category values or format.

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 ('expenses'), and notes the optional category filter. It is clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like list_recurring_expenses or export_expenses_csv.

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 the tool is for retrieving expense records, optionally filtered by category, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_recurring_expenses, summarize_expenses, or export_expenses_csv, and no exclusions are stated.

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