get_expenses

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. It fails to address whether this is a read-only operation, what happens on errors, or if it supports sorting, making it inadequate for a tool with multiple parameters.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Get expenses from Brex', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it may be overly terse given the tool's complexity, as it omits necessary context that could aid the agent in proper tool selection and usage.

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 has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, output format, error handling, and differentiation from siblings, making it insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke the tool without guessing or relying solely on the input schema.

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 clear enum values and descriptions for all parameters, so the description adds no additional semantic meaning. The baseline score of 3 reflects that the schema adequately documents parameters, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance understanding beyond what's already structured.

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 'Get expenses from Brex' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the resource ('expenses') and source ('Brex') but lacks a clear verb beyond 'Get' and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_all_expenses' or 'get_all_card_expenses', leaving ambiguity about scope or filtering.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_all_expenses' or 'get_all_card_expenses'. The description implies a general retrieval but offers no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from parameters alone.

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