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 'List expenses', implying a read operation, but does not disclose any additional traits such as pagination, ordering, rate limits, or whether soft-deleted expenses are included by default. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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: one main sentence and four examples. Every part adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose. No unnecessary words.

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?

With 16 parameters and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the examples only partially compensate. The tool has an output schema (not shown), so return values are not required in the description. However, the overall documentation is adequate but not thorough—gaps remain for many parameters and edge cases.

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. It adds meaning by showing parameter combinations in examples (e.g., month, year, category_id). However, it only covers 7 of 16 parameters (tags, notes, currency, etc. are missing). This partial coverage earns a 3.

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 'List expenses', a specific verb-resource pair. The phrase 'with powerful multi-dimensional filtering' indicates the tool's capability. Examples further clarify the purpose, but there is no explicit differentiation from sibling tools like 'search_expenses' or 'get_expense'.

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 examples provide concrete guidance on parameter usage (e.g., month, year, category_id for food expenses; payment_method, min_amount for UPI expenses). This helps the agent map natural language to parameters. However, no guidance is given on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like 'search_expenses'.

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