oc_get_expense

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it is a retrieval operation. It is consistent with annotations, providing no contradiction.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the purpose. It is concise and front-loaded, with no redundant information.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool, the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. The description is largely complete, though it does not clarify the requirement to provide at least one of id or legacy_id (both are optional in schema but implied by the description). This is a minor gap.

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% per context, though the schema itself includes basic descriptions for id and legacy_id. The description adds little value beyond restating 'by ID or legacy ID'. It does not explain when to use each parameter, constraints, or the effect of providing both, leaving the agent to infer from schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('detailed information about a specific expense'), and the identification methods ('by ID or legacy ID'). It effectively distinguishes the tool from sibling tools such as oc_list_expenses or oc_create_expense, which have different verbs or resources.

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 the agent knows an expense ID or legacy ID and needs detailed information, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like oc_get_account or oc_list_expenses. No guidance on when not to use it is provided.

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