ofw_list_expenses

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

Discloses a non-obvious response behavior – paging state (`hasMore`, `nextStart`) appears BEFORE the records, and `nextStart` is null when exhausted – which annotations (only readOnlyHint) do not cover. The warning about not stating totals or absence adds safety-critical context beyond the structured metadata.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, pagination mechanism, response behavior, and a caution. The verb and resource are front-loaded, with zero filler 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 list tool with full schema coverage and a readOnly annotation, the description covers purpose, pagination, and a key limitation. It does not enumerate the fields inside each expense record, which an agent might need if it must process the data, but the tool's name and warning reduce the risk of misuse. Minor gap only.

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 coverage is 100%: both parameters have descriptive text in the input schema (`max` with default 20, `start` with offset semantics and nextStart guidance). The description's mention of 'Offset-paged via start/max' and the nextStart instruction essentially echoes schema content, adding no new parameter-level meaning.

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 opens with 'List OurFamilyWizard expenses' – a specific verb and resource that unambiguously identifies the tool's function. It distinguishes this from siblings like ofw_get_expense_totals and ofw_list_messages by naming the exact resource type.

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?

Provides clear pagination usage ('Offset-paged via start/max', 'pass the nextStart from the previous response') and a critical caution ('Never state an expense total or an absence from one page') that implies when not to rely on this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools (e.g., ofw_get_expense_totals) for those cases, leaving some routing to inference.

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