List wFirma expenses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the behavioral constraint that listing is scoped to a single selected company, but it does not disclose pagination behavior or return characteristics beyond what the schema implies.

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 that front-loads the action and resource. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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 read-only list tool with three self-documenting parameters and comprehensive annotations, this description is nearly complete. It could explicitly mention the returned format, but list semantics combined with page/limit parameters make invocation unambiguous.

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 100%, with meaningful descriptions for page, limit, and companyId, including the warning never to use a NIP. The description only restates the company scoping requirement and adds no new parameter-level meaning.

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 action ('List') and resource ('expenses') and narrows scope to one explicitly selected client company. It differentiates from a single-expense getter by its plural listing nature, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling 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?

The phrase 'for one explicitly selected wFirma client company' implies a required prerequisite: the caller must know which company to use and must supply an internal company id. The description gives clear context but does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of alternatives like wfirma_get_expense.

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