list_expenses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds non-obvious behavior: pagination via limit/offset and the instruction to check has_more rather than assume completeness. 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?

Three compact sentences are front-loaded with the core purpose, then scoping rules, then pagination. Every sentence carries unique information with no 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 listing tool with an output schema and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description covers purpose, default scope, scoping constraints, and pagination. The only minor omission is the dated_after/dated_before filters, but they are optional and reasonably inferable from their names.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the parameter-semantics burden. It explains group/friend scoping, the mutual-exclusivity rule, and limit/offset meaning, but it omits dated_after and dated_before, leaving those two parameters to rely on their names alone.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource, 'List expenses', and immediately qualifies scope ('optionally scoped to one group or one friend', otherwise 'whole account'). This distinguishes it from single-expense getters like get_expense and from group/friend listing siblings.

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 gives concrete usage constraints: pass at most one of group_id/group_name or friend_id/friend_name, and states that omitting all filters returns account-wide expenses. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives like get_expense, but the guidance is clear enough for correct selection.

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