list_expenses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read operation but does not explicitly state it is read-only or side-effect-free. It also fails to describe behavior when filters are omitted (e.g., returns all expenses) or any limits/pagination. The inclusive date range note is useful but incomplete.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the primary purpose and optional filtering without wasted words. It is appropriately compact and easy to parse.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives the core purpose but lacks parameter format details, explicit read-only behavior, and return value expectations. It is minimally sufficient for basic use but leaves gaps that could cause incorrect calls.

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 coverage is 0% – the schema provides no parameter explanations. The description only clarifies that the date range is inclusive, but does not specify date format, semantics of null defaults, or behavior when a single bound is provided. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

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 ('List') and resource ('expense entries'), and mentions optional date filtering. This clearly distinguishes it from add_expense (creation) and the unrelated dice/number/summary tools, so an agent can easily tell what it does.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings, such as when to list vs. add expenses. The agent must infer usage from the name alone; there is no explicit context, exclusions, or alternatives mentioned.

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