Expense report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, non-destructive, or what permissions are required. While the output characteristics are described, behavioral traits like safety or side effects are missing.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and immediately provides key details. No redundant or irrelevant information is present.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return contents (breakdown by category/vendor, OCR provenance, reclaimable GST) and default behavior. It is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's output, though some minor specifics like total amounts might be inferred.

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?

The only parameter 'month' has 0% schema description coverage, but the description compensates by specifying the format (YYYY-MM) and default behavior ('default current'). This adds meaningful guidance beyond the raw schema.

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 returns an 'expense breakdown by category and vendor' with specific details like OCR provenance and reclaimable GST. It uses a specific verb ('breakdown') and resource ('expense report'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by targeting a bookkeeping perspective.

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 description implies usage for viewing expenses in a monthly breakdown, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like invoice_create or quote_list. No when-not conditions or exclusion criteria are provided.

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