list_expenses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the date range is inclusive, which is useful, and 'list' implicitly indicates a read operation. However, it does not detail the return format, ordering, or edge cases such as invalid dates.

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 one short sentence, front-loaded with the core action and object. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 list tool, the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It does not describe what fields are returned in the expense entries, lacks differentiation from the summarize sibling, and offers no troubleshooting or edge-case information. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, more detail would improve completeness.

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 input schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by stating an 'inclusive date range', indicating that both start_date and end_date are inclusive bounds and that they define a filter. It does not, however, specify date formats or types.

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 lists expense entries, which is a specific verb+resource. The inclusive date range adds precision, and it is distinct from sibling tools (add_expense, summarize).

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: use this tool when you need to list expenses within a date range. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid using it or consider alternatives like summarize, providing only implied context.

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