mf_expense_get_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only fetch via 取得, but says nothing about required authentication state, permissions, error behavior, or pagination/response shape for a detail endpoint that returns line items.

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 redundant or filler text. It is efficient, though very sparse for a tool whose behavior is otherwise undocumented.

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?

With only two required scalar parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: an agent can call it correctly, but the lack of any mention of returned content (header plus line items is only hinted at) or auth prerequisites leaves gaps for a tool with zero annotations.

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 100% with both office_id (事業者ID) and report_id (経費申請ID) documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, e.g. where report_id comes from (mf_expense_list_reports).

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?

States a specific verb (取得) and resource (経費申請の詳細と明細), distinguishing the get-report operation from expense transactions. However, it does not name or contrast itself with the obvious sibling mf_expense_list_reports, so an agent must infer which one fetches a single 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus mf_expense_list_reports or mf_expense_get_transaction, and no prerequisites (e.g. that expense OAuth must be completed via mf_expense_auth_start/callback). Usage context is left entirely to inference from the name.

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