Create Expense

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, non-openWorld operation, covering basic behavioral traits. The description adds some context by mentioning it's for 'tracking business costs' and listing use cases, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral details like error handling, rate limits, or specific permission requirements beyond what annotations provide.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and required parameters, followed by usage examples. However, the bilingual duplication (English/Spanish) adds redundancy without enhancing clarity for an AI agent, slightly reducing efficiency. Each sentence serves a purpose, but it could be more streamlined.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, mutation operation) and rich annotations, the description provides adequate context for basic use. However, with no output schema, it doesn't explain return values or success/error responses, leaving gaps in completeness. It covers the 'what' but not the full behavioral outcome.

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 each parameter well-documented in the input schema (e.g., amount in EUR, date format). The description only mentions 'description and amount' as required, which is already covered by the schema's required array. It doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the structured schema provides, so baseline 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 clearly states the verb ('Record'/'Registra') and resource ('expense'/'gasto'), specifying it's for creating new expenses. It distinguishes from siblings like update_expense or delete_expense by emphasizing 'new' creation, and from list_expenses/get_expense by focusing on recording rather than retrieval.

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 implied usage context ('Useful for tracking business costs, deductible expenses, and vendor payments'), which suggests when this tool might be appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like update_expense or when not to use it, nor does it mention prerequisites beyond the required parameters.

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