List Expenses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that filtering by category and/or date range is optional and specifies the date format YYYY-MM-DD. However, it does not mention default behavior when no filters are supplied, ordering, pagination, or whether date bounds are inclusive. This is adequate for a simple read operation but leaves some behavioral gaps.

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, focused sentence with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the optional filtering and date format are presented clearly and compactly.

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 optional parameters and an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. It explains the filtering capabilities and date format, and the output schema presumably covers return values. It lacks only a note about default results when no filters are applied, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 mentions category and date range, which maps to the three parameters, and adds the date format YYYY-MM-DD. Still, it does not individually define each parameter or clarify whether start_date and end_date are both required for a range, though their semantics are reasonably inferable from their names.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'List expenses'. It also states the optional filters (category and date range) and the date format, making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_credits and summarize_expenses because it targets expenses specifically and is a list operation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as summarize_expenses for aggregation or get_balance for balances. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or cases where a sibling should be preferred. The usage context is only implied by the verb 'List'.

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