list_expenses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Inclusive date range' clarifies boundary handling usefully, and it's implicitly a safe read. However, it doesn't disclose return format, pagination, ordering, maximum range, or filtering capabilities—gaps for a data-listing tool without annotations.

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?

Single sentence, zero wasted words, front-loaded with the main verb and object. Efficient and readable for the purpose it sets out to achieve, though brevity borders on under-specification.

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 (2 flat params, no output schema, no nested objects), so it doesn't demand a lot. The description covers the core purpose and boundary semantics. However, given 0 annotations and 0% param coverage, more detail about date format and return shape would improve completeness for an agent with no other signal source.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It states the range is inclusive but provides no format guidance (e.g., date syntax), meaning both start_date and end_date have minimal semantics beyond their names. The inclusive-range note adds modest value, but an agent still needs to guess supported date formats.

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 expense entries within an inclusive date range' uses a specific verb (list) with a clear resource (expense entries) and communicates scope (date range, inclusive). It distinguishes from siblings: add_expense (a write) and summarize (aggregation) are clearly different operations, though the description doesn't explicitly differentiate.

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 implies use when a date range is known, but offers no guidance on when to choose this vs summarize, how far back data is available, or edge cases like empty ranges. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given, so an agent gets limited direction on contextual selection.

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