add_expense

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only implies a mutation ('Add') but does not mention side effects, validation, failure modes, or any other behavior. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate consequences.

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, compact sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately front-loaded, stating the action and resource immediately. However, it is so minimal that it borders on underspecification rather than efficient conciseness, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 has 5 parameters (3 required), zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to address parameter formats, required input details, return values, or any operational context. An agent has almost no information to call this tool correctly.

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%, meaning the input schema contains no descriptions for any of the 5 parameters. The description does not compensate at all—it fails to explain what 'date', 'amount', 'category', 'note', or 'subcategory' expect in terms of format, range, or semantics. An agent cannot infer parameter meaning from either the schema or the description.

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 states a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('expense entry'), making the core purpose clear. It is distinct from siblings like list_expenses, but it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or differentiators, so it earns a 4 rather than 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context on prerequisites, and no mention of scenarios where it should not be used. The one-sentence description provides zero usage direction.

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