Record expense

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the two-phase preview/confirm write flow and the notion of a returned token, which is genuinely useful. But it omits permissions required, reversibility, what happens on failure, and return shape — significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with the operation type front-loaded and no filler. The 'amount (price × quantity)' aside is the only mildly ambiguous phrasing, since no 'amount' parameter exists.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations or output schema and only 38% schema coverage, the description is thin. It covers the preview/confirm mechanism and field list but says nothing about prerequisites, side effects, or returned data, leaving the agent under-informed on a write operation.

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 only 38%, so the description must compensate. It usefully clarifies that amount = price × quantity and that expense category is optional, and hints that matter_id identifies the matter. It leaves matter_id, non_billable, and the token semantics of confirm undocumented, so compensation is partial.

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 ('Records'), the resource ('an expense (ExpenseEntry)'), and its scope ('on a matter'), then enumerates the key fields. An agent knows exactly what this tool produces without opening the schema. No competing expense sibling exists, so differentiation is untested but not needed.

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?

It gives a procedural flow ('Write operation – preview first, then confirm with the token from the preview'), which is some guidance. However, this conflicts with the schema's confirm parameter, which says confirm=true may be used directly when the request is complete — so the 'preview first' framing is only partially aligned with the actual contract. No alternatives or exclusion criteria are offered.

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