fin.submit_expense

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

No annotations provided, and description omits behavioral details: what happens on submission (e.g., requires approval?), how listing works (filters?), side effects, or prerequisites. Barely discloses the dual-action nature.

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?

Two short sentences, no fluff, but the second sentence largely restates the first. Efficient but could be more informative without increasing length.

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 tool with two distinct actions and 5 parameters, the description lacks completeness: it doesn't explain action-specific requirements, optional parameters for list vs submit, or return behavior. Without output schema, more detail is needed.

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 has 100% description coverage with clear parameter explanations. The tool description adds no further semantic value beyond the schema, hitting the baseline for high coverage.

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 tool submits or lists expense reports, distinguishing it from sibling financial tools like payments or invoices. However, it uses 'expense reports' while schema fields suggest individual expense items, causing slight ambiguity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fin.process_payment or fin.query_invoices. The description lacks context for choosing between submit and list actions.

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