List expenses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing sort order ('newest first'), the content of each returned record ('what every person paid and owes'), and the default hiding of deleted records — genuine behavioral context an agent needs before calling.

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?

Four short sentences with purpose front-loaded, then filters, then return content, then the one important default. No filler, no restatement of the name, and the most surprising behavior (hidden deleted records) is called out explicitly rather than buried.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, this is close to complete: it covers purpose, filters, ordering, hidden-by-default semantics, and a sketch of the return shape in lieu of an output schema. Only the relationship to search_expenses is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter including limit/offset and the date formats is already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only the default-hidden semantics of include_deleted, which is partly redundant with its schema description ('Include expenses that were deleted'), and says nothing extra about group/friend accepting either id or name.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource plus a behavioral detail ('Lists expenses and payments, newest first'), which distinguishes it from get_expense (single item) and create/update/delete siblings. It stops short of naming or contrasting with search_expenses, which is the closest alternative, so the differentiation is incomplete.

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 filter set ('Filter by group, friend and date range') implies the browse/list use case, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over search_expenses or get_expense. The one true conditional it does give is 'Deleted expenses are hidden unless include_deleted is true', which is useful but does not double as usage guidance.

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