ofw_list_expenses

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

Annotations already provide 'readOnlyHint: true', so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds value by mentioning pagination, a key behavioral trait beyond annotations. However, no other behaviors (e.g., default ordering) are disclosed.

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, efficient sentence: 'List OurFamilyWizard expenses with pagination'. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information.

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 two pagination parameters and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description adequately covers the core purpose and pagination aspect. No output schema is needed. However, mentioning any default ordering or filtering options would improve completeness slightly.

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% with descriptions for both 'max' and 'start'. The description's mention of 'pagination' complements the schema by clarifying the parameters' purpose, adding value beyond the schema alone.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('OurFamilyWizard expenses'), and mentions pagination. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'ofw_create_expense' and 'ofw_get_expense_totals'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use 'ofw_get_expense_totals' instead). missing information about usage context or exclusions.

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