MCP Odoo Server

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. While it mentions pagination through limit/offset parameters and date filtering, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether results are sorted, or if there are rate limits. The description provides basic functional information but lacks crucial operational context.

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 well-structured with clear sections for purpose, arguments, and returns. Each sentence serves a specific purpose with no wasted words. The parameter explanations are efficient yet complete. The only minor improvement would be front-loading the most critical information more prominently.

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 that there's an output schema (though not shown in the prompt), the description doesn't need to explain return values. The parameter documentation is excellent, and the basic purpose is clear. However, for a list operation with filtering capabilities, the description could benefit from mentioning sorting behavior, result format expectations, or error conditions to be fully complete.

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?

The description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It clearly explains each parameter's purpose, format requirements (YYYY-MM-DD for dates), optional nature, default values, and for the 'state' parameter, provides the specific enum values (draft, reported, approved, done, refused). This comprehensive parameter documentation fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 tool's purpose as 'List existing expenses' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_expense', 'delete_expense', and 'update_expense' by focusing on retrieval rather than mutation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_expense_reports' or 'list_expense_attachments'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when to choose this over 'list_expense_reports', 'search_records', or other filtering tools. It also doesn't indicate prerequisites like authentication requirements or access permissions.

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