accelo_list_expenses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses pagination behavior (page is 0-indexed, limit max 100), which is real behavioral context, but it omits auth requirements, rate limits, and any statement about what the listing returns or how filtering interacts with pagination.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose on line one, followed by a compact args block with no filler text. Every line carries information, though the args formatting is slightly terse rather than maximally structured.

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 five-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers inputs adequately but says nothing about the returned shape, total counts, or pagination metadata. It is minimally sufficient rather than complete.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it enumerates the filter keys (id, standing, expense_type, submitter, approver, against_type/id, date_incurred_before/after, order_by_asc/desc), gives a fields example ('expense_type(),resource()'), and documents page indexing and limit max. It leaves filter value formats (e.g., date syntax, order_by usage) unspecified, so not a 5.

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+resource ('List expenses from Accelo'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like accelo_get_expense, accelo_count_expenses, and accelo_create_expense. However, it never explicitly names which sibling to prefer or how it differs from accelo_count_expenses or accelo_list_expenses-style filtered variants, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as accelo_count_expenses or accelo_get_expense, and no prerequisites or exclusions stated. Usage is only implied by the presence of filter/pagination args.

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