depenses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Liste' implies a read operation, but it does not state whether results are paginated, how many records return by default, whether auth/permissions are required, or what happens when no filter is supplied (all expenses vs none).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and filter options trailing; no wasted words. Slightly tight to the point of under-explaining, but structurally clean.

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 simple read/list tool with two optional filters and no output schema, the core purpose and filters are covered. Missing behavioral context (default scope, return shape, pagination) leaves the agent guessing about what a call with no arguments actually yields.

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 and it partially does: it explains that chantier_id is the 'numéro du chantier dans le compte' and that filter is by category. That adds real meaning beyond the bare schema, but 'categorie' gets no more than its plain-language equivalent and no accepted value format is given.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Liste les dépenses') and clarifies the domain term ('factures de frais'). However, it never names the sibling that distinguishes it, notably 'ajouter_depense' (add expense), so an agent must infer the read-vs-write split from the verbs alone.

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 mentions that results are filterable by chantier or catégorie, which hints at usage, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives like journal_achats, factures, or ajouter_depense. Nothing tells the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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