wafeq_expenses_list

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the HTTP method and path ('GET /expenses/') and labels the operation READ-ONLY, but it does not disclose pagination defaults, result ordering, or response shape beyond the generic notion of a list.

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 short and front-loaded with the READ-ONLY label and endpoint path. However, 'List expenses' and 'Endpoint for retrieving a list of expenses' are redundant, so a sentence does not earn 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 list endpoint with 15 optional filters and no output schema, the description is minimal but not misleading. It communicates the core operation, while filter semantics are covered by the schema. It lacks useful operational context such as pagination defaults or whether any parameters are commonly required in practice.

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%, and each parameter already has a meaningful description. The tool description adds no value beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 expenses') and the resource ('GET /expenses/'), so an agent can identify this as a read-only collection endpoint. It does not explicitly differentiate from wafeq_expenses_retrieve, but the tool name and 'list' wording make the distinction reasonably clear.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus wafeq_expenses_retrieve, wafeq_expenses_create, or other expense endpoints. It also does not mention that this is the appropriate tool for filtering by branch, status, account, contact, project, or date ranges, leaving usage context to be inferred from the parameter names.

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