List spendings

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), lowering the burden on the description. It adds the date-range filtering behavior and clarifies that 'spendings' means 'costs', but it does not mention pagination behavior, result ordering, or what happens when no filters are supplied. No contradiction with annotations.

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 zero filler: the verb and resource come first, and the optional-filter qualifier follows as secondary context. Every word earns its place.

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 a low-complexity list tool with rich annotations and fully self-documenting parameters, the definition is nearly complete. There is no output schema so the return shape is undocumented, and there is no explicit routing to billingo_get_spending for single-record lookups, which keeps it from a 5.

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%, with all four parameters (page, per_page, start_date, end_date) individually documented, so the baseline is 3. The description's date-range phrasing adds nothing beyond what start_date and end_date already specify.

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 names a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('recorded spendings (costs)'), and the qualifier 'optionally filtered by date range' adds useful scoping. It is clearly a bulk read operation, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling billingo_get_spending, which would be required for a 5.

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 phrase 'optionally filtered by date range' implies the main use case (bulk retrieval with optional date bounds), but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over billingo_get_spending or the other list siblings. Usage context is implied rather than directly stated.

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