List Expenses

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 only states the inclusive date range and the listing action. It does not mention return format, ordering, whether the operation is read-only, pagination, or behavior with invalid/missing dates. For a tool with no annotation safety signals, this is a notable gap.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, and adds the important 'inclusive' detail. There is no redundant wording; every word contributes meaning.

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 simple two-parameter list tool, the description provides the essential purpose and range implication. However, without annotations, output schema, or parameter details, an agent is left without guidance on expected return data, error behavior, or how this integrates with the sibling tools. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 by explaining the parameters. It implies start_date and end_date define an inclusive range, but it gives no format details, no semantics for each parameter, and no guidance on date types or boundaries. This is inadequate for low schema coverage.

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 specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('expense entries'), and a precise scope ('inclusive date range'). It distinguishes itself from siblings: add_expense creates entries, summarize aggregates them, while this tool retrieves raw entries.

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 the tool is used to retrieve expense records between two dates, which is a clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over add_expense or summarize, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. The usage context is inferable but not explicit.

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