get_expense_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the returned content (lines, amounts, status) which is helpful, but does not mention any potential side effects, permissions, or error behavior. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word adds value, and the list of returned details is efficient.

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 get operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and return contents. However, it lacks parameter explanation and explicit usage guidance, leaving gaps in completeness for an agent selecting and invoking the tool.

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 has a single 'id' parameter with no description, and the description offers no additional meaning. It does not explain what the id represents beyond the obvious context of the report, nor any format or constraints. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description fails to compensate.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves details of an expense report, listing specific components (lignes, montants, statut). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_expense_reports and create_expense_report.

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 intended use is implied by the verb 'obtenir' and the emphasis on details, but the description does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. It provides a clear context for retrieving a specific report but lacks explicit guidance.

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