get_additional_income

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the verb 'Get' is consistent. The description adds scope context ('income or expense' and 'from Quipu') but does not disclose return format or not-found behavior. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate.

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 wasted words. Every element—verb, resource, qualifier, source, access method—earns its place.

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 single-parameter get-by-id tool with annotations covering safety and schema covering the parameter, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing. The 'income or expense' qualifier also prevents assumption errors.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'by its id' only restates the id paramater and adds no format, type, or semantic detail beyond the schema's 'Additional income id'.

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 ('Get'), resource ('single additional income or expense entry from Quipu'), and access method ('by its id'). The 'single' qualifier distinguishes it from list_additional_incomes, and the get-by-id pattern separates it from update/delete siblings.

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?

Makes clear this is for retrieving a single existing entry when the id is known. It does not explicitly name list_additional_incomes as the alternative for multiple entries, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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