List expenses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that with ordering ('last added first') and the returned field set, but says nothing about page size limits or cursor-based continuation, which matters for a paginated list. Adequate, not rich.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, opening with the field summary before the operational detail. The opening clause ('amount, date, vendor, project, cost type and who paid') is then largely repeated in fuller form in the second paragraph, which is mild redundancy but not damaging.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so thoroughly — name, amount with tax, date, vendor, project, cost type, payer and billability. Ordering and filtering are both stated, and the remaining mechanics (limits, cursor) are documented in the schema.

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 75%: cursor, search and project_id are documented inline, and limit carries default/min/max constraints. The description's 'Filter by project or search' merely restates two of those parameters without adding matching semantics such as whether search spans vendor or project names. 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 states a specific verb and resource with scope: it 'Reads the Contractor Foreman Expenses list, last added first' and enumerates the fields returned. It implicitly distinguishes itself from get_expense (single record) and create_expense (write), but never names a sibling explicitly.

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 closing line 'Filter by project or search' gives an implied usage pattern, but there is no explicit guidance on when to reach for this list versus get_expense, nor any statement about pagination-based iteration or when not to use it.

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