Get Expenses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the useful scoping hint that it lists user-submitted expense claims rather than all expenses, but it does not disclose response shape, ordering, pagination, or any auth expectations. This is moderate added context beyond 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?

The description is two short sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed directly by when-to-use guidance. There is no fluff, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 read-only list tool with two optional parameters and full schema coverage, the description gives an agent enough to invoke it correctly. The notable gap is the unresolved overlap with the get_expense_claims sibling, which prevents full completeness.

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 100%, with both 'limit' and 'status' already documented including defaults and allowed status values. The description does not add parameter-level meaning, so it stays at the baseline 3.

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 gives a clear verb ('List') and resource ('expense claims'), and ties it to user-facing terms like reimbursements and receipts. However, there is a sibling tool named get_expense_claims that appears nearly identical, and the description does not differentiate between them, so it does not earn a 5.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: when the user asks about expenses, expense claims, reimbursements, or submitted receipts. This is clear context, but it offers no exclusions or alternatives, especially failing to clarify when to prefer get_expenses over get_expense_claims.

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