expensify_list_policies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the tool's safety profile. The description adds the return fields but does not elaborate on behavioral traits such as whether the list is complete, pagination, or rate limits. It does not contradict 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 concise at two sentences, front-loading the purpose and return fields in the first sentence and providing usage context in the second. No wasted 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 list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it lists return fields and gives usage context. It could mention ordering or pagination, but it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the tool lists Expensify policies (workspaces) visible to the authenticated account, specifies returned fields, and explicitly positions it as the starting point for obtaining policy IDs, differentiating it from siblings like expensify_get_policy and expensify_create_policy.

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 clear usage guidance by stating 'Start here when you need a policy ID for any other tool,' implying it is the primary listing tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like expensify_get_policy for fetching a single policy.

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