Get wFirma expense

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds useful behavioral context by emphasizing that the expense is a single record tied to an explicitly selected company, reinforcing the companyId requirement and the read-only nature.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning: it identifies the action, resource, count, and company-scoping requirement.

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 read operation with two required parameters, full schema coverage, and strong annotations, the description is complete. It addresses the key nuance of selecting one specific company and one specific expense, and no critical additional context is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 both id and companyId having clear descriptions, including the warning not to use a NIP for companyId. The description does not add much parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but the schema already carries the semantic weight, so baseline 3 is 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('one expense'), and a specific scope ('from one explicitly selected wFirma client company'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wfirma_list_expenses, wfirma_get_invoice, and wfirma_get_payment without needing to inspect schemas.

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 conveys clear usage context: use this when you need a single expense for a specific company, not a list. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the singular 'one expense' and the requirement of an explicitly selected company provide sufficient situational guidance.

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