expensify_list_policies

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

The description mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what data is returned, pagination, or rate limits. Without annotations, the description carries the full burden and fails to provide substantial behavioral detail.

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?

Short but not concise in a helpful way. It under-specifies the tool's purpose and parameters. Every sentence adds little value, missing critical details.

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?

Despite an existing output schema, the description offers no context about what policies are, how they relate to other Expensify tools, or how to interpret results. Completely inadequate for a tool with an output schema and sibling tools.

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 only repeats the parameter name 'arguments' as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' adding minimal meaning. With 0% schema description coverage and no enumeration of expected keys or valid values, the agent must guess the format.

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 merely repeats the tool name ('Expensify connector operation list_policies') without stating that it lists policies or what a policy represents. It is essentially a tautology, providing no meaningful purpose beyond the name.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like expensify_list_expenses or expensify_list_reports. No context on prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases.

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