get_expense

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'complete record' without explaining error behavior (e.g., if ID not found), authentication requirements, or response format. The description is too sparse to convey behavior beyond the basic 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?

The description is a single, direct sentence that immediately states the verb and resource. It contains no unnecessary words and is well-structured for quick understanding.

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 getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It says 'complete record' but does not explain what fields are included, nor does it address error handling or the behavior when the ID does not exist. This leaves significant gaps for an agent relying solely on the description.

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 provides only a type and name for the single parameter 'expense_id' with no description. The description adds the context that it is an 'Elorus ID', clarifying the identifier type, but does not provide format constraints or further elaboration. This adds some meaning beyond the schema.

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's function with a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'expense', specifying it retrieves a single expense by its Elorus ID. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_expenses' which lists multiple records.

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 the tool should be used when a single expense record is needed given an ID, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It doesn't say 'instead of list_expenses' or address when not to use it, so usage guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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