ofw_list_expenses

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=true annotation, the description discloses a non-obvious response trait: paging state (hasMore, nextStart) precedes the records, so truncated reads still convey whether more remain. This plus the total/absence guardrail adds real behavioral context that an agent could not infer from annotations or the schema.

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?

Four sentences, all earning their place: purpose, paging mechanism, response ordering with its implication, and an anti-hallucination guardrail. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains zero filler.

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 tool with two optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, pagination mechanics, response shape, and interpretation rules. The only small gap is not naming ofw_get_expense_totals as the explicit alternative for totals, relying instead on an implied prohibition.

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%, with both max and start fully documented including defaults, ranges, and the nextStart continuation contract. The description adds the offset-paging framing but does not materially extend what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 precisely identifies the operation. It cleanly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ofw_get_expense_totals (totals) and ofw_create_expense (creation), reinforced by the closing guardrail 'Never state an expense total'.

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 establishes clear use context: listing expenses with offset paging via start/max, and continuing via nextStart. The directive 'Never state an expense total or an absence from one page' functions as an implicit exclusion for the totals sibling, but it does not name the alternative explicitly, which would have earned a 5.

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