expiries_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing that the payload embeds a `history` collection ordered newest-first. It says nothing about not-found behavior or what the item itself contains, so it goes beyond annotations only modestly.

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 clause with no filler, and the most useful fact — the embedded history and its ordering — is placed up front. It is efficient, though so compressed that the retrieval action and lookup key are never spelled out.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it only covers the `history` part while saying nothing about the expiry item's own fields. Annotations cover safety and the schema covers both parameters, so the remaining gap is the shape of the primary object rather than the call mechanics.

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 `uuid` and `companyId` (including the STORNO_COMPANY_ID override) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning about either parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource as a single expiry item and adds that a `history` collection of renewed items is included, which distinguishes it from the sibling `expiries_list` and `expiries_upcoming`. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb — the retrieval action is only implied by the tool name — and it never states that the item is looked up by UUID, leaving the core operation implicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer this over `expiries_list` or `expiries_upcoming`, and no prerequisites or failure conditions. The singular framing hints at single-item lookup, but the agent must infer that from the name rather than the description.

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