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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the description's 'Limitations: read-only' is redundant. It adds no new behavioral context such as pagination-free single fetch, required auth mode among the several token parameters, or response shape (no output schema exists).

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?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with the action and endpoint. Efficient, though the 'Limitations: read-only' fragment is filler given the annotations.

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 6-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description omits return-value shape, auth selection among api_token/app_password/access_token, and multi-workspace account_id requirement. It relies entirely on the schema and annotations to fill these gaps.

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 83%, with most parameters documented in the schema (base_url, api_token, account_id, access_token, app_password). The description adds no parameter detail at all, so it does not compensate for the undocumented expense_id or clarify the auth-parameter alternatives.

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+resource ('Gets one expense') and even names the underlying endpoint GET /expenses/:expense_id, which distinguishes it from list_expenses and get_* siblings. It doesn't explicitly name which sibling it replaces, but the singular/plural distinction is implicit.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer list_expenses, update_expense, or delete_expense. The agent must infer that this is the single-record read from the name alone.

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