get_expenses

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add non-obvious context. 'Tracked in Guesty' adds platform context, but it doesn't disclose filtering behavior, pagination, or whether all expenses are returned when no filters are provided. This is adequate but not rich, so a 3 is appropriate.

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, direct sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose. No filler or redundancy, making it appropriately concise and front-loaded.

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 read-only tool with well-documented optional parameters and safety annotations, the description is complete enough. It does not explain return formats or filter behavior, but the schema covers parameters and the annotations cover safety, so the minimal description suffices. A 5 would require more explicit mention of the list nature or how filters interact, but this is not a major gap.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all four optional parameters (to, from, limit, listingId). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('operational expenses tracked in Guesty'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_expense or get_financials. The scoping to 'operational expenses' adds precision beyond a generic 'fetch 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like get_financials, get_owner_statements, and get_reservation_financials, a statement like 'use this for operational expense tracking, not for revenue or owner statements' would help. The current wording only describes what it does, not when to choose it.

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