Get Expense

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only that the tool retrieves details; it does not mention read-only semantics, error behavior for missing expense_id, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The term 'Get' implies a read operation, but that inference is not explicitly confirmed.

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, tightly worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then specifies the included detail types, all in 12 words.

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 one-parameter getter with an output schema, the description is workable but leaves gaps. It does not address error handling, relationship to sibling tools like get_expenses or get_comments, or any prerequisites. Given the absence of annotations, this is a minimum-viable description.

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 must compensate by explaining expense_id. Instead, it only mentions output facets (users, splits, comments) and provides no guidance on how to obtain a valid expense_id, its format, or constraints. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's bare type declaration.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'expense' and explicitly says 'single expense', which immediately distinguishes it from the sibling get_expenses. It also enumerates what 'full details' includes (users, splits, comments), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 phrase 'full details of a single expense' provides a clear context for when to use this tool: whenever you need comprehensive information about one expense. It does not, however, explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like get_expenses, so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

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