Search expenses

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

Beyond readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, it discloses client-side scanning, newest-first order, the scan_limit bound, and case- and accent-insensitive matching. This makes the potentially incomplete historical coverage and the reason for it visible before invocation.

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?

Two dense sentences front-load the purpose and matching behavior, then explain the non-obvious implementation constraint and its mitigation. The examples and operational details earn their space without filler.

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 seven-parameter read-only search, it covers the essential matching, ordering, scope, and scan-bound behavior while the schema supplies defaults and formats. It would be slightly more complete if it explained how scan_limit exhaustion is represented in results, particularly because there is no output schema.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds substantial meaning: query is an all-words normalized match with examples, scan_limit bounds a newest-first client-side scan, and filters help extend effective historical reach. It adds operational semantics rather than merely repeating schema text.

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?

It specifies the verb, resource, searched fields, and all-word matching rule, clearly distinguishing keyword search from list_expenses and get_expense. The examples make the intended query style concrete.

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?

It explicitly advises narrowing with group, friend, or dates when searching further back, providing actionable guidance for the scan limitation. It does not explicitly route unfiltered browsing or listing needs to list_expenses, so sibling-selection guidance is not exhaustive.

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