freshbooks_get_expense

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation, and adds no behavioral context beyond 'get' (e.g., no mention of return format, error handling, or absence of side effects). Since annotations already declare read-only status, the description doesn't need to repeat it, but it also doesn't add extra behavioral nuance.

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 one short sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and resource. No wasted words; every element serves a purpose.

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-only get-by-id tool with one parameter, the description is adequate. It states the operation and the identifying requirement. Given there is no output schema, a short note about the return value could be useful, but the purpose is sufficiently clear.

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 input schema already covers 100% of the parameter semantics with type 'integer' and description 'Expense id'. The description's 'numeric id' adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high 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') with a specific resource ('expense') and clearly scopes it to a single entity identified by numeric id. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_expenses or create_expense.

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 implies usage when the caller has a specific expense id and needs that one expense. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like list_expenses for multiple records, but the 'single' vs. list distinction is implicitly clear among sibling tools.

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