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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, openWorldHint), yet the description adds real context: the exact return contents, the comment ordering (oldest first), and the auth requirement (Cotlet API key with app access). This is meaningful disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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?

Front-loads what the tool returns before moving to usage and auth, with little waste. The 'Expensify:' prefix and a slightly dense return enumeration are minor but not distracting.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly, describing both the header and per-expense fields plus comment ordering. Safety is covered by annotations and auth by the description, leaving nothing essential missing.

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%, so report_id is already documented as coming from list_reports. The description only implies a single-report lookup and adds no syntax or format detail, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (a single report) and immediately enumerates the payload: report header, every expense with merchant/date/amount/category/receipt/hold, and comments. This clearly distinguishes it from list_reports and get_expense siblings.

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?

Explicitly ties use to the approve/reject workflow ('Use it before approving or rejecting so the decision rests on the lines'), routing the agent to the right moment. It doesn't name the alternative list_reports or an explicit when-not-to-use, so it stays just 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.