list_recurring_expenses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'all recurring expenses' but the schema shows an active_only parameter that defaults to true, implying inactive recurring expenses are excluded unless the caller opts out. This filtering behavior is not disclosed, nor is any pagination or ordering.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It front-loads the core action and resource, though it is too sparse to be fully helpful.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no annotations, and sibling tools covering recurring expenses, the description should explain the active_only default and how this list differs from alternatives. An output schema exists, so return-value details are less necessary, but the semantic gap around filtering and default behavior remains significant.

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 for the undocumented parameter. It does not mention active_only at all or explain how the default affects results. The parameter name and type are self-explanatory to some degree, but the description adds no semantic value and even conflicts with the default behavior.

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 clear verb ('List') and a specific resource ('recurring expenses'), and it distinguishes the tool from the general 'list_expenses' sibling by the recurring-expense scope. The word 'all' gives a sense of scope, though it is slightly undercut by the active_only default.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as generate_due_recurring_expenses or list_expenses. There is no mention of filtering, scheduling contexts, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate.

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