expense_vat

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: results are monthly and grouped by currency. No contradiction with annotations.

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 (10 words) that is front-loaded with key terms (Monthly VAT, expenses, currency, date range). No 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?

Given the simple read-only nature and full annotations, the description adequately covers purpose and scope. However, without an output schema, it does not explicitly describe the return format (e.g., list of objects with month, currency, amount), which a more complete description might provide.

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 clear descriptions for each parameter (UUID, date formats). The description merely reinforces 'date range' but adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Monthly VAT on expenses by currency for a date range' clearly states what the tool does: it retrieves monthly VAT data for expenses, grouped by currency, over a specified date range. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'expense_monthly' (monthly expenses without VAT) and 'finance_vat' (general VAT).

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 implies usage for VAT-specific expense queries but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'finance_vat' or 'expense_monthly'. No exclusions or context for when not to use it is provided.

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