list_incomes

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does disclose the core trait of an optional date range filter and implies a read-only listing operation. It omits ordering, inclusive date handling, pagination, and response shape, so the disclosure is only partial.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the operation and the only meaningful option. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague 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 two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior: it lists incomes and may be date-filtered. The schema fills in parameter details; minor omissions such as ordering and default range behavior keep it from maximum completeness.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema with types and formats, so the description adds little beyond the 'optional' filtering intent. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 uses the specific verb 'list' with the resource 'income records', making the operation unmistakable. It clearly differentiates from siblings like create_income and list_spendings by naming the exact resource.

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 phrase 'optionally filtered by date range' implies a usage context and signals when the date parameters may be relevant. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over related list tools 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.