get_deputy_expenses

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: the name/ID requirement logic, error behavior for ambiguous names, and optional filtering by year/month. It also describes the return type (APIResponse with expense data or error). The main gap is lack of information about permissions, rate limits, or data format specifics.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement upfront, followed by important behavioral details, then organized parameter documentation. Every sentence adds value - no redundant or vague phrasing. The separation of general description from Args/Returns sections enhances readability.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, usage constraints, parameter semantics, and return behavior. The output schema existence means it doesn't need to detail return structure. Minor gaps include lack of sibling tool differentiation and no mention of authentication or error handling specifics.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 4 parameters in detail: clarifies the name/id exclusivity requirement, warns about name ambiguity consequences, and explains the filtering purpose of year/month. The Args section provides type information and the text adds crucial semantic context beyond basic 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verb ('Gets') and resource ('expenses for a single deputy'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_bills_by_deputy' (which gets bills) and 'get_deputy_by_name' (which gets deputy info rather than expenses). The opening sentence is precise and unambiguous.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool (to get expenses for a deputy) and includes important usage constraints (must provide either name or ID, name ambiguity handling). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'get_bills_by_deputy' or provide when-not-to-use guidance beyond the implied scope of deputy expenses.

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