find_unexpected_charges

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the classification logic (expected, referenced, amount_mismatch, unexpected) and mentions listing lease items never charged. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or if it has side effects, which would be beneficial.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the overall purpose, and the second provides the detailed classification scheme, making it efficient and front-loaded.

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 no parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does and how it classifies charges, which suffices for an agent to understand its function. The output schema covers return values.

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 input schema has no parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter information. The absence of parameters is handled correctly, and the description focuses on the tool's behavior.

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 it audits every ledger charge category against the lease, classifying each as expected, referenced, amount_mismatch, or unexpected. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_late_fees or check_rent_charges, which focus on specific categories.

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 a comprehensive audit of all charge categories, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or direct comparisons to sibling tools are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool names.

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