list_expenses

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

There are no annotations, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic listing action. It does not mention whether the result is read-only, how results are ordered, whether pagination is applied, or any side effects. For a tool without annotations, this is insufficient behavioral transparency.

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 extremely concise, using a single short phrase without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it is so brief that it omits valuable differentiators and context, making it more under-specified than optimally concise.

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?

Given the existence of the closely related sibling tool 'list_expense_reports', the description does not explain the relationship or unique role of 'list_expenses'. There is no mention of the output format or any constraints. The description is incomplete for an agent to confidently select this tool over alternatives.

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?

The description does not add any information about parameters. The schema covers two of three parameters ('status' and 'user_id') with descriptions, but 'limit' is left undocumented. With 67% schema coverage, the description could compensate for the missing 'limit' explanation but does not. This results in a moderate score, as the schema carries most of the semantic load.

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 ('Lister' = list) and a resource ('notes de frais' = expense reports), clearly indicating the tool's function. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling tool 'list_expense_reports', which likely has an overlapping purpose, so it misses the opportunity to differentiate.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_expense_reports' or other listing tools. It does not mention filtering capabilities, typical use cases, or any exclusions. This leaves the agent uncertain about the appropriate context for invocation.

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