Get spending

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds only that it returns a single spending, which is consistent but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as not-found behavior or response format. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource and avoids repeating the tool name or restating schema details.

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 single-parameter read tool with strong annotations and no output schema, this description is sufficient. An agent knows the input (id) and the expected result (a single spending) without needing additional detail.

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%: the id parameter is documented as 'Spending id.' The description's 'by id' adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema fully explains the parameter.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('single spending') with an explicit lookup key ('by id'). It clearly differentiates from the sibling billingo_list_spendings, which returns multiple spendings, and aligns with the get-by-id pattern of sibling tools like billingo_get_partner.

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 a specific spending id is known and a single spending is needed, and it implicitly contrasts with billingo_list_spendings. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over list_spendings or mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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