bos_expense_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without explaining behavior such as pagination, default sorting, idempotency, or whether it supports filtering beyond the schema. The agent gains no insight into side effects or safe usage.

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 very concise with a single sentence, but it lacks structure and fails to prioritize key information. It is not front-loaded with essential details beyond the basic action. While brevity is valued, more structured exposition is needed for clarity.

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 the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely inadequate. It provides no context on output format, filtering behavior, date formats, or pagination limits. The agent cannot reliably use this tool without external documentation.

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%, meaning the parameters lack descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not explain the purpose of 'page', 'page_size', 'from_date', or 'to_date'. The agent must infer from parameter names, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 'List expense transactions and refunds' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on expense transactions and refunds, which is distinct from other listing tools like bos_order_list or bos_purchase_list.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as bos_order_transactions or bos_customer_transactions. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool should or should not be used.

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