list_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. 'List expenses' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose whether filtering behavior, sorting, pagination, or view semantics are applied, nor what response shape to expect. This is a significant gap.

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 sentence with no wasted words, which is concise. However, it is so minimal that it sacrifices substance; it is efficient but not appropriately informative for a tool with six parameters.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, six parameters, and a large set of sibling tools, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain listing behavior, filtering semantics, return structure, or how it differs from other list tools, leaving an agent without enough context to invoke it confidently.

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 only 33%, with sortBy and searchTerm documented but viewSlug, filterRoles, and customViewId left unexplained. The phrase 'Bigcapital list filters' is too generic and does not clarify the semantics of these parameters, so the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 a clear verb and resource: 'List expenses'. This distinguishes it from single-resource operations like get_expense, update_expense, and create_expense, and from list_invoices/list_bills. However, it does not differentiate itself further or explain what an expense listing entails, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_expense for a single record or list_bills for a different resource. The description only says what it does, not when it should be chosen or when it should not be used.

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