Xero Expenses MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it's a list operation with optional filtering. It lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise at just 7 words, front-loading the core purpose ('List all receipts') followed by the key qualification. Every word serves a purpose with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a list operation that likely returns multiple items, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address return format, pagination, error conditions, or how results are structured. For a tool that presumably returns a collection of receipts, more context about the output would be valuable for the agent.

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 description mentions 'optionally filter by user ID' which aligns with the single parameter in the schema. With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents this parameter fully, so the description adds minimal value beyond confirming the optional nature. This meets the baseline for high 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 clearly states the action ('List all receipts') and resource ('receipts'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'xero_create_receipt' by specifying listing vs creation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'xero_list_expense_claims' beyond the resource type.

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 provides minimal guidance with 'optionally filter by user ID' but offers no context about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or comparison with other receipt-related tools like 'xero_attach_file_to_receipt', leaving the agent with insufficient guidance for optimal selection.

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