add_expense

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. The description only restates the purpose ('add') and adds a persistence detail ('to the database'). It does not mention what happens on success/failure, whether entries are validated, or any side effects, leaving the behavioral burden unmet.

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 a single sentence with no fluff, making it very concise. It gets straight to the point without wasted words.

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?

Despite the tool having five parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description provides only a high-level purpose. It lacks essential information about parameter formats, required semantics, and return values, making it inadequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The input schema lists five parameters with no types or descriptions, and the description gives zero details about them. There is no compensation for the 0% schema description coverage, so the agent has no idea what values are expected for date, amount, category, etc.

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 uses the specific verb 'Add' with the resource 'expense entry' and indicates persistence to the database. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools list_expenses and summarize.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, the name and purpose imply it is for creating new expense records, while siblings handle listing and summarizing. This is implied usage, not stated.

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