sw_get_expense

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description does add genuinely useful non-structured context: the response text is third-party authored and must be treated as data rather than instructions. It stops short of stating failure behavior for an unknown id or noting the 'compact' default that quietly drops avatars and reminder/transaction blocks.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the action is front-loaded before the safety caveat. Every clause carries 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?

For a single-parameter-per-required read tool with no output schema, the definition covers identification and the key safety concern. The one gap is that the view parameter's default and its effect on the returned record are left entirely to the schema, and nothing is said about an id that does not exist.

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% and the view enum is documented in the schema in far more detail (what compact drops versus what full returns) than anything in the description. The description adds only 'by id', so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource (get a single expense) and pins the scope to one record identified by id, which implicitly separates it from sw_list_expenses, sw_create_expense and sw_update_expense. The only wobble is 'full details' when the default view is actually 'compact', so the stated purpose slightly overshoots the default behavior and no sibling is named outright.

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?

Usage is implied by 'single expense by id' — an agent can infer this is the lookup-by-identifier path while sw_list_expenses is the discovery path — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite (e.g. that an id must first come from sw_list_expenses).

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