rm_get_expense

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the annotations, but it also does not contradict them, and no auth, rate-limit, or side-effect caveats are needed for a simple read operation.

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. It communicates the core action and target in nine words.

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 one-parameter get-by-id tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description is nearly adequate, but it leaves the agent to infer when to use it and what exactly 'details' includes. It is missing minimal usage context rather than essential safety or return information.

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 0%, so the description needed to explain expense_id, but it only says 'specific logged expense' without mentioning the parameter itself, its format, or how to find it. The parameter name is suggestive but the description adds no real semantic value.

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') and resource ('details for a specific logged expense'), clearly distinguishing it from list/create/update/delete expense siblings. The word 'specific' signals it operates on one expense rather than a collection.

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?

No usage guidance is provided: the description does not state when to choose this over rm_list_expenses or how to obtain the expense_id. The only implicit cue is 'specific,' which is not enough to orient an agent that has many expense-related alternatives.

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