get_expense

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description is consistent with that. Beyond restating retrieval, it adds nothing about what the returned details include, whether approval/decline state is surfaced, or any access constraints, so it contributes no behavioral context of its own.

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 short sentence with the key noun phrase front-loaded and zero wasted words. It is efficient, though almost too terse to be maximally informative.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description could reasonably say more about what 'details' are returned, but the tool is simple (one required ID) and the read-only annotation covers the safety profile. Adequate but minimal for a fetch-by-ID tool.

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% with a single, self-documented expense_id parameter, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no format, sourcing, or ID-provenance detail beyond what the schema provides, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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 and resource ('Get details of a specific expense report'), so an agent knows it fetches a single expense record. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings like list_expenses or get_payment, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 phrase 'a specific expense report' implies retrieval by identifier, and the required expense_id parameter makes the single-record intent clear. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of list_expenses for browsing, and no prerequisites such as obtaining an ID first.

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