create_expense

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

The only annotation is a title, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Submit' faintly implies a mutation that feeds an approval flow, but it does not disclose permissions, whether the report is finalized or editable, or what happens on submission. For a 6-required-param mutation with no annotation coverage, this is thin.

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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than concise.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only a title annotation, the description is inadequate: it does not explain the approval lifecycle, return behavior, or failure modes. An agent is left to guess how submission relates to approve_expense/decline_expense.

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 100% with a documented enum for category and a URI format for receipt_url, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.

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?

States a specific verb ('Submit') and resource ('expense report'), clearly a create operation that is distinct from the list_expenses/get_expense/approve_expense/decline_expense siblings. However it does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings by name or scope.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the approval workflow that sibling tools imply. The agent must infer all usage context.

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