sw_get_expense

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

The description adds little behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it conveys single-record lookup and 'full details' but does not mention error behavior, the default compact response, or other runtime traits. With readOnlyHint=true already covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It names the operation, resource, and key identifier efficiently.

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 read-only getter with fully documented parameters and readOnlyHint, the description is nearly sufficient. It lacks explicit alternative routing and response/error hints, but the schema's detailed view semantics compensate for most missing context.

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 both parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the id-based lookup and adds no meaning beyond the detailed view enum explanation, 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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('a single Splitwise expense'), and the lookup key ('by id'). This clearly distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like sw_list_expenses and from mutating expense tools.

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 'single... by id' gives clear context: use this when you need details for one known expense. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, such as using sw_list_expenses for multiple expenses.

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