search_expenses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful boundary — that this tool surfaces parsed drafts but does not finalize them (that happens elsewhere). It does not disclose pagination behavior despite a page parameter, so it adds only modest context.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The brevity is a virtue, though the second sentence's 'Morning' reference is cryptic enough that its clarity is slightly compromised.

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 search tool with two undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of what can be searched or how results are paged, the description leaves major gaps. An agent cannot confidently determine what this returns or how to narrow results.

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 carry the burden for the two parameters, and it does not. The phrase 'parsed expense drafts' loosely gestures at the drafts boolean but never explains it, and the page/pagination parameter is entirely unaddressed.

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?

States a verb (read) and resources (expenses / parsed expense drafts), so the basic action is inferable. But the name says 'search' while the description never describes any search/filter criteria, and it does not differentiate this from siblings like search_document_drafts or search_clients. The 'Morning' reference is opaque and does not sharpen the purpose.

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 only guidance is 'Finalize parsed drafts in Morning,' which hints that finalization belongs to another tool but never states when to call this tool versus alternatives. No conditions, no exclusions, no routing beyond a single vague pointer.

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