invoiceninja_get_expense

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'with all details,' signaling full-detail return, but its claim of all details is slightly undercut by the fields/response_format trimming params. No mention of auth or rate limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, stating the action, the record, the identifier type, and the detail level. Efficient, though very sparse.

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 read tool whose annotations cover safety and whose schema is 100% documented, the description does the minimum. It does not reconcile 'all details' with the fields/response_format options that can reduce output, leaving minor ambiguity.

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%, so the id, fields, include, and response_format parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates 'hashed id' without adding syntax or format meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clear verb+resource+scope: 'Get one expense by its hashed id' distinguishes this single-record fetch from the sibling invoiceninja_list_expenses. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the singular/plural contrast makes the distinction inferable.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternate list_expenses path to discover ids, and no prerequisites. The 'hashed id' input implies you must already have the id, but the agent is left to infer this.

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