expensify_export_reports

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable context: it reveals that the tool generates a file and returns its filename, and it describes the default output columns. This extra detail clarifies the tool's behavioral traits beyond the annotations.

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 relatively concise—a few sentences that front-load the main action. Every sentence contributes meaning, though it could be slightly tightened without losing clarity.

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 parameter count, schema coverage, and annotations, the description feels complete. It explains the output (generated filename), the default CSV columns, and the complementary tool. No output schema exists, but the description provides sufficient detail about return values.

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?

With 88% schema description coverage, the schema already handles most parameter meanings. The description adds value by explaining the default column output when 'template' is omitted, which is not in the schema. However, it does not elaborate on all parameters, so a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 begins with a clear verb+resource: 'Start an export of expense reports and return the generated filename.' It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by stating it is the only API that enumerates reports, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool: for filtering by report IDs, date range, or approval state. It also explains the next step—passing the returned filename to expensify_download_file—and notes that this is the sole way to enumerate reports, effectively directing the agent to this tool over alternatives.

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