Add Expense

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly implies a mutating create operation, but it does not state whether expenses can be duplicated, whether any validation occurs, what side effects happen, or what the response contains. The agent gets only the most basic behavioral signal.

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 short sentence with no filler or redundancy, which is appropriately concise for a simple create operation. It is slightly repetitive with the title but still adds the target destination 'database,' earning its place. Brevity is good, though the terseness contributes to under-specification elsewhere.

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?

With five parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot confidently construct a valid call because it lacks required-value formats, category options, subcategory semantics, and response behavior. The single sentence provides almost none of the context needed for correct invocation.

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 offers no information about the five parameters. The schema itself provides no type or format details for date, amount, category, note, or subcategory. The description does nothing to compensate for this gap, so an agent has no guidance on how to supply valid parameter values.

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 states a clear verb and resource: adds a new expense entry to a database. It differentiates from sibling tools because list_expenses and summarize imply reading or aggregating rather than creating. However, 'expense entry' and 'database' are somewhat generic, so it is clear but not maximally precise.

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?

Usage context is implied by the verb 'add,' which suggests this tool is for creating new expense records rather than listing or summarizing. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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