list_expenses

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

With no annotations provided, the description must cover behavioral traits. It clearly implies a read-only listing operation, but it does not disclose pagination behavior (despite the limit parameter) or other nuances. The basic behavior is transparent, but additional context is missing.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler content. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's basic functionality, making it appropriately concise.

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 core functionality is covered, but the description lacks distinction from the sibling tool 'search_expenses' and fails to mention pagination via the limit parameter. With an output schema present and a simple read tool, the description is minimally adequate but leaves notable gaps in comparative context and parameter details.

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 description adds meaning to category and date-range parameters by framing them as optional filters, which is helpful given the schema's 0% description coverage. However, it omits the limit parameter entirely and provides no date format details, so the semantics are only partially explained.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'expenses', clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It also mentions optional filters, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'search_expenses', so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_expenses. It explains what the tool does but not when to choose it, leaving the agent without decision-relevant context.

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