expenses_spend

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a valuable nuance: net subtracts only CONFIRMED reimbursements, and unreviewed auto-matches are proposals, not facts. It also indicates a read-only nature by saying 'Returns...' but does not mention additional behaviors like pagination or performance. This is a meaningful disclosure for a query tool.

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 two crisp sentences. The first states the core purpose in five words, and the second adds a critical behavioral detail. There is no redundant wording, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return values (gross, reimbursed, net) and the key nuance about confirmed reimbursements. It does not detail the output structure (e.g., array of groups) or expand on grouping, but for a simple query tool this is adequate. The sibling set is large, yet the description's focus on window+grouped is sufficient to disambiguate from most alternatives.

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 schema already describes start and end (ISO dates, inclusive) but leaves group_by undocumented. The description adds nothing beyond the schema; it mentions 'grouped' but does not explain the grouping options or their implications. With schema coverage at 67%, the description does not compensate for the missing group_by semantics, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool reports spend over a time window, grouped, with gross, reimbursed, and net figures. It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like expenses_recurring or expenses_outstanding, though it does not explicitly name an alternative. The verb 'spend' and the scope 'window, grouped' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 for grouped spend summaries over a date range, but it provides no exclusions or explicit alternatives. An agent might infer when to use it but is not told when not to use it or which sibling tool would be better for other scenarios.

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