get_expenses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read operation ('Retrieve') and names all filter parameters including the YYYY-MM-DD date format. However, it does not disclose how filters combine (AND/OR), whether date bounds are inclusive, pagination behavior, or ordering. For a simple list tool this is adequate but leaves some edge-case behavior unspecified.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the core action ('Retrieve list of expenses') followed by optional filter names and date format. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are covered elsewhere. The description addresses purpose, filter parameters, and date format. It lacks explicit statements about default behavior when no filters are provided, ordering, or limits, but for a straightforward list retrieval tool, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It enumerates all four parameters (category, subcategory, start_date, end_date) and specifies date format, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not describe valid values for category/subcategory, dependencies between filters, or the effect of omitting all filters (presumably returning all expenses). The description adds a baseline level of semantic clarity but not deep detail.

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 the specific verb 'Retrieve' with resource 'list of expenses', clearly distinguishing this from siblings like add_expense, delete_expense, and get_expense_summary. It states exactly what the tool does: returns a list of expenses, with optional filters.

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 usage when a list of expenses is needed, optionally filtered by the named parameters. It contrasts implicitly with get_expense_summary (summary vs list) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. The context is clear, but no exclusion criteria are provided.

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