wafeq_expenses_retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear without the description. The description adds the HTTP method and URL pattern and restates READ-ONLY, but does not disclose response shape or invalid-id behavior; this is acceptable given the annotation coverage but not a strong value-add beyond it.

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 short and front-loaded with the READ-ONLY and endpoint markers, but 'Retrieve expense' and 'Endpoint for retrieving a single expense' are redundant restatements. A single concise sentence would have equal utility.

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 one-parameter, single-object GET endpoint with annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the resource, the HTTP path, and the singleness of the result. It does not explicitly describe the return value or error cases, but 'retrieve expense' strongly implies the returned object, so the remaining gap is minor.

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 0%, so the description bears the burden of explaining the id parameter. It only indirectly clarifies id through the URL template /expenses/{id}/ and the phrase 'single expense'; it does not explain the id format or that id is the unique expense identifier, though the single required parameter makes the gap small.

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 names a precise operation—retrieving a single expense via GET /expenses/{id}/—and the word 'single' distinguishes it from wafeq_expenses_list and the create/update/destroy variants. This gives an agent enough specificity to select it among the many retrieve endpoints.

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 use when an agent needs one expense and already has its id, but it never explicitly says when to prefer this over wafeq_expenses_list or mentions that the id is required. No alternatives or exclusions are stated, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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