get_expense

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

No annotations are provided. The description uses 'Fetch' implying a read operation but does not confirm read-only behavior, mention error handling, permissions, or side effects. For a tool with no annotations, more transparency is needed.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loading the main purpose. It could be slightly better structured but is not verbose.

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?

The description specifies what is returned (payment type, account, date, amount, line details) and the types covered (Expenses, Checks, Credit Card charges). Although no output schema exists, the description provides a reasonable overview. Could be improved by clarifying differences from similar fetch tools.

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% with a single parameter 'id' described as 'The expense (Purchase) ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'by ID', so 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 clearly states the action ('Fetch'), the resource ('a single expense (Purchase)'), and the scope ('Covers Expenses, Checks, and Credit Card charges'). It also lists what is returned, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_bill or get_deposit.

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 needing a single expense by ID, but does not explicitly state when to use versus siblings (e.g., get_bill for bills). No 'when not to use' or alternative tools mentioned.

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