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 behavioral burden. It says the tool writes a record but is silent on what happens if expense_id already exists (overwrite vs. duplicate error), whether the write is reversible, what validation failures look like, or that this is a mutating, non-read-only operation requiring accurate accounting data. For a 17-parameter write tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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 front-loaded sentence with no filler and the purpose stated first. It is efficient, though for a tool with 17 parameters and a multi-step import-recovery workflow the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than true concision.

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?

Has an output schema, so return values need not be described, and 100% schema coverage handles parameters. Given that, the description only needs to establish purpose and the import-failure entry point, which it does. The gap is the missing tie to list_import_issues, not missing return or param detail.

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 100%, so every one of the 17 parameters already carries its own meaning (including the non-obvious reverse_charge, claim_date, supplier_country and business_share semantics). The description adds no parameter guidance beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource in Czech: 'Ručně zapíše přijatou fakturu (výdaj)' — manually records a received invoice as an expense. It also scopes it to documents the import cannot read. However, it does not distinguish itself from the similarly-named sibling add_manual_invoice, so an agent must guess between the two.

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?

'hlavně doklady, které import neumí přečíst' implies the entry point (documents flagged by import), but never names the sibling that surfaces those documents (list_import_issues) nor contrasts with add_manual_invoice, remove_expense, or mark_expense_paid. Usage is inferable but not stated as an explicit condition.

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