list_expenses

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only discloses the inclusive boundary behavior but omits details like output format, ordering, pagination, side effects, or error conditions. The 'inclusive' detail is useful but insufficient for full transparency.

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, focused sentence of seven words. Every word is meaningful and there is no redundancy or 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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), and the description provides the core function plus the inclusive boundary. However, it lacks details about the return value, ordering, or behavior when no entries match, making it minimally adequate but with gaps.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies start_date and end_date define the range, but gives no type, format, or relationship details. This adds minimal value beyond the parameter names.

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 'List' with the resource 'expense entries' and scopes it to an inclusive date range. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools 'add_expense' (adding) and 'summarize' (aggregating).

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 'inclusive date range' provides clear context for when this tool is used (retrieving entries between dates). It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the sibling tool names make the intended use obvious.

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