myob_spend_money_list

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention pagination, filtering behavior, required authorization, or response characteristics. The output schema exists but does not compensate for the lack of behavioral 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It efficiently conveys the core action. However, it is so terse that it borders on under-specification, although that flaw is better captured in other dimensions.

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 list tool with three parameters and zero schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain filter usage, default limits, or business_id handling. The output schema exists but does not compensate for the missing parameter semantics and usage guidance.

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%, and the description provides zero explanation of 'top', 'filter', or 'business_id'. An agent has no idea what filter syntax to use, how 'top' behaves (e.g., limit or page size), or how 'business_id' scopes the query. This is a critical gap.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List spend-money transactions.' This clearly identifies the tool as a read-only listing operation for spend money transactions, distinguishing it from sibling tools like myob_receive_money_list or myob_bill_list. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or differentiate on scope, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context about prerequisite conditions. The description simply states the action without any hint of appropriate use cases, which is insufficient for an agent deciding between many list tools.

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