Add Expense to Task

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description describes the action as 'record an expense or cost', which is consistent. However, it does not add behavioral context beyond the basic action, such as whether expenses accumulate, can be edited, or require permissions. Given low annotation value add, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any extraneous words. It is concise and front-loaded.

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 has 3 well-documented parameters, an output schema, and annotations that describe safety and openness. The description covers the action and use case. All essential information for an agent to select and invoke the tool is present and clear.

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 each parameter having clear descriptions (e.g., 'Description of what the expense was for', amount as decimal string, dateTime as ISO 8601). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool records an expense/cost for the currently running task (e.g., travel, materials). The verb 'record an expense' and resource 'cost associated with the currently running task' are specific, and the examples clarify scope. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from potential sibling expense tools (none exist) nor clarify if it's only for running tasks.

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: when the user wants to record an expense/cost associated with the currently running task. It provides concrete examples. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but among siblings, no other expense tool exists, so the guidance is clear.

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