autotask_search_expense_reports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is for searching, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the response looks like (e.g., list format). This leaves significant gaps for a search tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination, or error handling, which are critical for a search tool. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for proper tool invocation is insufficient.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for each parameter (submitterId, status with enum mapping, pageSize with defaults and limits). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond 'optional filters,' which is already implied by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Search for expense reports with optional filters,' which specifies the verb (search) and resource (expense reports). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like autotask_create_expense_report and autotask_get_expense_report by focusing on search functionality, though it doesn't explicitly mention these alternatives in the description.

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, such as autotask_get_expense_report for retrieving a specific report or autotask_search_time_entries for other search operations. It mentions 'optional filters' but doesn't specify scenarios or prerequisites for usage.

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