invoices-get_expenses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Gets'), but does not mention side effects, error conditions (e.g., missing invoice), or pagination. For a simple get tool, this is adequate but minimal.

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 with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose.

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 1-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description partially explains the return value ('all expenses'), but does not specify the format or structure of the output. It is adequate but could be more explicit (e.g., 'Returns a list of expense objects').

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% (one parameter described), so baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema's definition of invoice_id as 'Invoice ID (@rid format)'. No extra context is provided.

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 'Gets' and resource 'all expenses linked to an invoice', clearly stating the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from siblings like invoices-get (invoice details) and invoices-list_unbilled_expenses (unbilled expenses).

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 need all expenses for a given invoice. However, it provides no explicit when-not or alternative tools, such as when to use list_unbilled_expenses instead. The context is clear but lacks exclusion guidance.

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