get_expense

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, informing the agent this is a safe, idempotent read. The description adds that it returns 'full detail,' which is slightly more specific but still minimal. It does not describe any behavioral traits like potential errors or data scope.

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 short sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the key action. It earns its place by being to the point, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 retrieval tool with one required parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the tool returns full details, but does not elaborate on the output schema content or any edge cases. Given the output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values, but it could still provide better context on what 'full detail' entails.

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 description fails to explain the single required parameter 'expense_id'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by at least stating that the expense_id identifies which expense to retrieve. It does not, leaving the parameter's role ambiguous.

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 'Full detail of an expense' clearly indicates a retrieval operation on a single expense resource. It implies a get-by-ID action, distinguishing it from listing or mutation tools, but does not explicitly state the use case or differentiate from siblings like list_expenses or update_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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_expenses for a list or get_expense_attachment for attachments. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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