autotask_get_expense_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic operation ('Get...by ID') without mentioning whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, what happens if the ID doesn't exist, rate limits, or response format. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 perfectly concise at 6 words: 'Get a specific expense report by ID'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary words or sentences. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential information.

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?

Given that this is a retrieval tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage for its single parameter, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information the expense report contains, how to interpret the result, error handling, or how this differs from search operations. The agent would need to guess about the return format and behavioral characteristics.

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 description coverage is 100% with one parameter ('reportId') fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a specific expense report by ID'. It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('expense report'), but doesn't differentiate it from sibling tools like 'autotask_get_ticket_details' or 'autotask_get_quote', which follow the same 'get X by ID' pattern. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'autotask_search_expense_reports' for listing multiple reports or other 'get_' tools for different resources. There's no context about prerequisites, error conditions, or when this tool is appropriate.

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