list_expenses

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

With no annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: period_from/period_to only apply when both are given, and the return shape is {count, page, results}. It also notes that the result contains summary fields. This goes beyond simple 'list' and gives the agent actionable expectations.

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 compact and well-organized: a one-sentence purpose followed by a clear bullet list of filters and a return note. Every sentence adds value with 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?

For a 6-param list tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: filter behavior, output structure, and pointer to get_expense if full records are needed. It could mention pagination details or ordering, but the defaults in the schema cover some of that gap.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It explains the date range format and conditional behavior, supplier as an Elorus contact ID, and search as free-text. It omits page/page_size semantics, but those are self-evident from their names and defaults, so the coverage is strong.

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 clearly states the tool lists expenses (purchase documents) with summary fields, and differentiates from siblings by directing to get_expense for full records and mentioning supplier lookup via list_contacts. The verb 'List' and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use this tool (listing expenses) and gives alternative guidance: use get_expense for full record, find supplier with list_contacts. It does not explicitly state 'when not to use' but the alternative pointers serve as exclusions for related tasks.

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