list_expenses

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that this is a read-only listing operation and that it returns all entries rather than a filtered or aggregated subset, but it does not clarify date inclusivity, ordering, pagination, or the output structure.

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 concise sentence with no redundant wording or repeated schema information. Every phrase contributes: the action, the resource scope, and the date constraint.

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 simple two-parameter list tool, the description gives the core invocation intent, but there is no output schema and no annotation safety information. An agent would still need to infer the return format and the accepted date representation, so the description is adequate but not fully 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?

The input schema provides no property descriptions, so the description is the only semantic source. It names both startdate and enddate and states that they define the range boundaries, which adds real meaning beyond the empty schema entries. However, it does not specify date format or whether the bounds are inclusive/exclusive.

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 uses a specific verb ('Listing') with a clear resource ('all expense entries') and a date-range constraint, so an agent immediately knows what the tool does. It is also distinguishable from the sibling tools add_expense and summarize, which are write/aggregation actions rather than retrieval.

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 phrasing 'Listing all expense entries between startdate to enddate' clearly implies the tool is for retrieving every expense record in a specified range. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the sibling tools are so different in purpose that the intended context is still obvious.

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