search_expenses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the search criterion but does not convey important behavioral traits such as substring vs exact match, case sensitivity, sorting, or pagination behavior. This is a significant transparency gap for a search tool.

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 that gets straight to the point. No wasted words or unnecessary details.

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 description is minimal but sufficient for a simple search tool. The presence of an output schema likely documents return values, so that is not a concern. However, the description lacks context on search semantics (e.g., does 'keyword' match exactly or as a substring?), leaving some ambiguity. Given the existence of sibling tools, a bit more context could help disambiguate.

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 the 'keyword' parameter by clarifying it refers to the description field. However, it says nothing about the 'limit' parameter, and schema description coverage is 0%. Thus, it only partially compensates for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the action (search) and resource (expenses), with a specific qualifier ('by description keyword'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_expenses, which presumably lists all expenses without a keyword filter.

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 when to use the tool: when you need to find expenses based on a description keyword. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding between this and list_expenses.

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