list_expenses

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral detail beyond that, such as pagination behavior, default scope, or that all parameters are optional.

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 only two words, which is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It has no structure or front-loaded useful content, just a restatement of the tool's name.

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?

Although the schema and annotations are reasonably rich, the description contributes no context about the purpose, filtering semantics, or relationship to sibling tools. An agent selecting among many similar list tools would not be able to distinguish this tool beyond its name.

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%, and all seven parameters are individually documented in the input schema. The description adds nothing about parameters, but the schema already carries that burden, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List Expenses' simply restates the tool name and title, making it a tautology rather than an informative purpose statement. It provides no detail about what the list contains or how it differs from the many sibling list_* tools.

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 about when to use this tool instead of related tools like list_payments, list_invoices, or list_mileage. An agent receives no contextual cues about appropriate use cases, filters, or exclusions.

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