concur_get_expense

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description's genuine addition is the prompt-injection warning that returned text is third-party authored and must be treated as data, which is valuable and specific. It says nothing about error behavior for mismatched IDs, missing entries, or response size for expense entries with many itemizations.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first defines the payload, the second delivers a security constraint. The long enumeration in sentence one is justified because there is no output schema and the agent needs to know what is retrievable. The field list could be grouped slightly more tightly, but there is no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so thoroughly, covering amounts, receipt, itemizations, exceptions, and form fields by label. The injection warning closes the most important behavioral gap for an open-world read tool. It is not fully complete because nothing is said about failure modes or payload size for heavily itemized expenses.

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 description coverage is 100% and the view enum is documented in detail in the schema, including what compact, full, and raw each return. The description adds only a parenthetical about list-valued fields carrying the list item id, which is minor detail rather than new parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 uses a specific verb and resource ("Get one expense entry on an SAP Concur report") and then enumerates exactly which fields come back, which is enough to distinguish it from concur_get_report and concur_list_available_expenses without consulting the schema. The scope is unambiguous: a single expense entry, not a report or a list.

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?

Usage is clear from the singular-object framing, and the schema parameter descriptions explicitly route the agent to concur_list_reports for reportId and concur_get_report for expenseId, which is real navigation help. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or statement of what to do when the entry is not on the given report, so it stops short of a 5.

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