List Expenses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys that this is a read-only listing operation over a date range and uses 'all' to indicate no filtering beyond the dates, but it does not mention ordering, pagination, or whether the dates are inclusive.

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 sentence with no wasted words and front-loads the main action. It is concise, though slightly under-specified in ways covered by other dimensions.

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 listing tool with an output schema, this is minimally viable: it states the resource and the date-range filter. However, it lacks sibling differentiation and explicit parameter semantics, so it is not fully complete for an agent making a confident selection.

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, but it only says 'between given 2 dates' without mapping from_date and to_date to the range boundaries or explaining inclusivity. It adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 ('List') and resource ('all the expenses') plus a date-range constraint, so an agent can tell this is a retrieval tool. It is distinct from add_expense, edit_expense, and delete_expense, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from summarize_expenses.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like summarize_expenses. It implies a date-range listing use case, but it never states exclusions or directs the agent to another sibling for aggregated summaries.

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