sw_list_expenses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds that all filters are optional, which is helpful but does not elaborate on return format, pagination behavior, or other operational traits beyond what the schema already implies. With annotations present, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 highly concise: two sentences that front-load the action ('List or search Splitwise expenses') and then clarify filter optionality. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 read-only list tool with comprehensive parameter schema and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description sufficiently covers purpose and filter usage. It does not explicitly state the return type or pagination details, but these are reasonably implied by the list operation and the presence of limit/offset parameters. Overall, it is adequately complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

All 8 parameters have complete descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description's mention of group_id and dated_after/dated_before simply echoes the schema. No additional meaning is added beyond the structured data, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 or search Splitwise expenses,' using a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like sw_get_expense (single vs. multiple) and sw_list_groups (different resource). It unambiguously identifies the tool's core function.

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 provides useful context by stating all filters are optional and highlighting group_id and date-range filters. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., sw_get_expense for a single expense) nor state when to avoid this tool, leaving usage guidance incomplete relative to the high standard.

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