get_spending

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., no mention of authorization, latency, or result format). Since annotations cover the main safety profile, the description's lack of additional detail is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 description is very concise at one sentence. However, the use of Hungarian may reduce clarity for an English-speaking agent. The structure is straightforward, with no wasted words.

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 should ideally hint at the return values (e.g., fields of the spending object). It does not. Also missing are error conditions or non-existent ID behavior. For a simple retrieval tool, more detail would be helpful.

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 100% description coverage: the parameter 'spending_id' is described as 'A költség ID-ja' (the cost ID). The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter sufficiently.

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 Hungarian description 'Költség adatainak lekérése ID alapján' clearly indicates retrieving spending data by ID. The tool name 'get_spending' aligns with this purpose. It distinguishes itself from other 'get_*' siblings like 'get_document' or 'get_bank_account'. However, the language mismatch (Hungarian vs English tool name) could cause minor confusion, preventing a perfect score.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_spending' or 'create_spending'. There is no indication of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Minimal justification for when to invoke this tool.

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