netsuite_get_expense_report_by_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the response includes expanded sub-resources, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not explicitly state read-only nature, authentication needs, or error behavior. The word 'GET' implies a safe operation, but this is not formalized.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('GET a NS expense report') and adds only essential detail about expanded sub-resources. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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-by-ID tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It specifies the identifier type and gives a concrete example of the response shape (expense.items[].category). While it doesn't cover error cases, this is not critical for such a straightforward read operation.

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 coverage is 100% for the single required parameter 'id', and the schema already describes it as 'Expense report internal ID'. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the resource: 'NS expense report by internal ID'. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by noting 'expanded sub-resources' (e.g., expense.items[].category), which differentiates it from simpler lookup tools like get_expense_report_by_external_id.

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 usage when you have an internal ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like `netsuite_get_expense_report_by_external_id` or `netsuite_get_expense_reports`. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, so guidance is 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.