get_expense

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' signals a read-only lookup, which is a useful behavioral trait, and 'by ID' indicates direct retrieval. However, it does not disclose behavior for missing IDs, errors, authorization requirements, or what response shape to expect.

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?

The entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It communicates the operation and parameter in six words, so every component earns its place.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description provides enough information to know when and how to invoke the tool. It omits potential return/error details, but given the low complexity and obvious semantics, the missing details are not critical. It is complete enough for selection and basic invocation.

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 schema has only one parameter, id, but the description names its semantic role by saying 'by ID,' connecting the parameter to the expense resource. It does not add detail about the integer format or exclusivity, which are already in the schema; this is adequate for a single obvious parameter despite the measured 0% schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the exact resource ('an expense') and selection criterion ('by ID'), so the tool's function is immediately clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as get_vendor or update_expense, although the resource and verb make the distinction largely obvious.

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 phrasing implies this tool should be used when the agent has an expense ID and wants a single expense record. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it or which alternative to prefer, so the guidance remains implicit rather than prescriptive.

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