search_expenses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the search fields. It does not clarify matching semantics (exact vs. substring), whether results are paginated via limit, or what the response contains. The verb 'search' weakly implies a read-only operation, but this is not explicit.

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 redundant wording or filler. It is concise and front-loads the core searchable fields, though it sacrifices some behavioral and usage detail for brevity.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential query semantics but leaves out usage differentiation, matching behavior, and limit behavior. It is minimally viable but not fully complete for an agent that must choose between several expense-related tools.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description does add meaning to 'query' by specifying that it matches category, subcategory, or note. The 'limit' parameter receives no semantic explanation beyond its integer type and default value, so the description only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 names a specific action ('search') and resource ('expenses'), and identifies the searchable fields: category, subcategory, or note. It is not a tautology and gives enough detail to distinguish search expenses from expense mutation tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with list_expenses or 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?

The description implies when to use the tool: when the agent needs to find expenses by category, subcategory, or note. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer search_expenses over list_expenses or summarize, nor any exclusions or fallback conditions.

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