list_expenses

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It goes beyond basic 'list' semantics by revealing two important behaviors: truncation to 50 inline results and export of the full dataset to a CSV spreadsheet. It also clarifies that the date range is inclusive. However, it does not specify the ordering of results before truncation or how the CSV export is delivered, which are minor gaps given the absence of an output schema.

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 concise and efficient: two sentences, the first stating the core purpose and the second disclosing critical behavior. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every sentence adds value. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 relatively simple listing tool with two date parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers the main functionality, the date-range inclusivity, the truncation rule, and the CSV export fallback. The main missing details are ordering and CSV delivery mechanism, but these are not major for a basic retrieval tool. The context is sufficient for an AI agent to invoke it correctly in most use cases.

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 only two string parameters (start_date and end_date) with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds the meaning that these define a date range and that the range is inclusive, which is useful. However, it does not specify the expected date format (e.g., YYYY-MM-DD) or any validation constraints like start date must be before end date. This is partial compensation but leaves gaps for an agent to infer format correctly.

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 tool lists all expenses from the database within a date range. It uses specific verbs and resource references ('List all expenses'), and the sibling tools make the distinction clear (e.g., add_expense, delete_expenses, compare_budget_vs_expenses). The scope is well-defined, and there is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 a user needs to retrieve expenses over a specific period. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_budgets or expense_summary by focusing on raw expense records. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for filtered or summarized views, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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