list_expenses_for_invoice

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action ('list all expenses attached to a specific invoice') but omits critical information such as read-only nature, required permissions, side effects, or return format. The description adds minimal value beyond the tool name.

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, which is concise but overly minimal. While it avoids fluff, it lacks details that could be included without much overhead. The structure is appropriate for a simple list tool but could be improved with additional context.

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 (one required parameter, output schema exists), the description is still incomplete. It does not explain what 'attached to a specific invoice' means in terms of the invoice_id parameter or the type of expenses returned. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but the description lacks essential behavioral and contextual cues.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning the parameter invoice_id has no description in the schema. The tool description does not add any meaning to this parameter; it simply restates 'expenses attached to a specific invoice' without explaining the parameter's role or format. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema 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 verb 'List' and the resource 'expenses attached to a specific invoice', making its purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_expenses_for_client or list_expenses_for_project by specifying the invoice context, but does not explicitly differentiate from other invoice-related list tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context in which this tool should be preferred over, for example, list_expenses or list_expenses_for_date_range.

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