List Recurring Expenses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful disclosure of the exact response shape, including field names such as frequency, category, and nextOccurrenceDate. No contradicting behavior is described.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose and examples first, then parameter, then return shape. Every sentence adds useful information and nothing is redundant.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter amenable to the schema 100%. The description adds the return field list explicitly, compensating for the absence of an output schema. Combined with annotations covering safety and idempotency, nothing important is missing.

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?

With only one boolean parameter and 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents includeInactive and its default. The description repeats this information without adding extra meaning, 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 states a specific verb-resource pair ('List recurring expenses') and adds clarifying examples ('subscriptions, bills, regular payments'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_summary_by_period or list_documents, which target different resources.

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 makes the tool's scope clear and includes the optional includeInactive parameter with its default behavior. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for the same resource, but none of the siblings provide a competing recurring-expense listing, so no exclusion is needed.

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