log_expense

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

The description discloses key side effects: adding to the month's total, deducting from salary, and computing the remaining balance. With no annotations provided, this is essential and well-communicated, though it omits potential error conditions or authentication needs.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the core action and effects. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy, achieving high information density.

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?

The description covers the basic operation but lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., an initialized month or existing salary) and failure modes. Given the sibling tools suggesting a workflow, this omission could lead to incorrect usage. An output schema exists, but it does not negate the need for usage context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies 'amount_in_dollars' represents the expense amount, but it does not clarify the meaning of 'name', 'month', or 'description'. The mapping between parameters and concepts is incomplete, offering only minimal value beyond the schema's bare names.

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 action (adds a new expense) and its consequences (deducts from salary, computes remaining balance). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'add_person' and 'initialize_new_month' by specifying the resource (monthly expense).

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 usage context is implied: it is for logging expenses. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or mention of prerequisites like having an initialized month or salary set. This leaves the agent without clear when/when-not guidance.

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