Search Expenses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly discloses that this is a local, offline, read-only operation with no API calls and no paywall, and it flags the sync dependency. It doesn't detail pagination or data-freshness edge cases, but the core behavior is well explained.

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?

Four short sentences with no fluff: purpose and dependency first, then search scope and filters, then return value and operational characteristics. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Given an output schema and 11 optional, self-named parameters, the description covers the critical context: sync prerequisite, local/offline behavior, searchable fields, and filter dimensions. It could add a bit more about include_deleted/include_payments and limit semantics, but nothing blocks correct invocation.

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%, so the description must add parameter meaning. It explains query as full-text over description/details/category and maps filters to amount range, user_id, group_id, category, and date range. A few optional params (limit, include_deleted, include_payments) are left to their self-explanatory names and defaults.

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 operation ('Search the local mirror') and a clear resource (expenses), then details search scope and filters. The phrase 'local mirror' plus 'no API calls' distinguishes it from API-backed siblings like get_expenses.

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?

It gives a concrete prerequisite ('run sync_all first') and context for when the local search is appropriate ('Instant, offline, no API calls'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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