get_cashbook_entry

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's only added behavioral content is the domain hint that entries are receipts and payments. It says nothing about what happens when the id is not found, whether the detail spans linked documents or installments, or what scoping company_id imposes beyond what the schema already states.

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?

One short sentence with the resource and the "complete detail" qualifier front-loaded; there is no filler. It is however on the terse side for a tool whose return shape is undocumented.

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 two-parameter read tool with readOnlyHint and no output schema, the definition is barely sufficient: it identifies the entity but never indicates what the "full detail" contains. Since no output schema exists, some indication of return content would have been valuable.

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?

The company_id parameter is well documented in the schema (including its default resolution), while id has no description at all, leaving coverage at 50%. The description clarifies that the id identifies a cashbook movement, but adds no format or constraint details beyond that.

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?

Names the resource precisely ("un movimento di prima nota") and the operation ("dettaglio completo"), and the parenthetical "(incassi e pagamenti)" scopes which entries are covered. It implicitly contrasts with list_cashbook_entries by promising full detail of a single entry, though it never names that sibling.

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?

Usage is only implied: "dettaglio completo" signals fetching one record's full detail rather than a list, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the list_cashbook_entries alternative, and no preconditions (e.g. that the entry must exist or belong to the given company).

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