list_expenses

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the schema — the inclusivity of the date range ('inclusive') — and the verb 'List' implies multiple returned entries. However, it omits other behavioral traits an agent might need, such as result ordering, pagination limits, or behavior on invalid/out-of-order dates. The output schema covers return shape, but the behavioral disclosure is only partial.

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 sentence with zero wasted words. The verb and resource are front-loaded, followed immediately by the scoping constraint. Every word earns its place.

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 present, the description is nearly complete. The inclusive-range semantics and the listing behavior cover the core invocation needs, and the output schema handles return values. What's missing is minor: explicit routing relative to siblings and any pagination/ordering caveats.

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 100%: both start_date and end_date are documented with format (YYYY-MM-DD) and inclusivity semantics. The description's 'inclusive date range' phrasing reinforces the schema but does not add new parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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') with a clear resource ('expense entries') and a scoping qualifier ('inclusive date range'). This precisely differentiates it from siblings like add_expense, update_expense, delete_expense (mutations), get_expense (singular), summarize (aggregation), and list_categories (different resource). An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 date-range qualifier implies when to use this tool (fetching multiple entries over a period), and sibling names provide some context, but the description never explicitly states when to prefer it over alternatives like get_expense or summarize, nor does it give exclusions. Usage context is clear but implied rather than stated.

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