depenses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the primary read behavior ('Liste') and the filtering capability, but does not disclose return format, pagination, ordering, or potential side effects. For a list tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('Liste les dépenses') followed by the filtering detail. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or extraneous information.

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's simplicity (two optional filters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the essential context: what it does and how to filter. It does not explain return values in detail, but the verb 'Liste' implies a list response. It lacks pagination/ordering details, but for a basic list tool, this is acceptable.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description explicitly states that the parameters are filters ('filtrables par chantier ou catégorie'), mapping directly to 'chantier_id' and 'categorie'. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare parameter titles and defaults, though it does not specify exact formatting or value constraints.

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 the specific verb 'Liste' (lists) and the resource 'dépenses (factures de frais)' (expenses/expense invoices), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'factures' (invoices) and 'ajouter_depense' (add expense). It also mentions the filtering capability, making the purpose precise and unambiguous.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (when you need to list expenses) and highlights its filter options (chantier or category). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context and naming relative to siblings provide sufficient guidance for a simple list tool.

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