concur_get_report

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description goes beyond them by explaining what the response contains, defining `blocking` exceptions as those that prevent submission, and warning that the returned text is third-party and untrusted. It stops short of covering error behavior (e.g. an unknown or inaccessible reportId) or any rate limits, which keeps it off a 5.

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, front-loaded with the action and its scope, followed by the trust caveat. The parenthetical field list earns its place by telling the agent what it can answer without a second call, and 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 must describe the return value, and it does so thoroughly, including exception semantics. It is only slightly incomplete in not situating itself among the related read tools or indicating what happens on a bad reportId.

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%, with the `view` enum fully documented including what each mode changes, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get one SAP Concur expense report") and enumerates the exact payload: header, every expense entry with named fields, and exceptions. This is clearly distinguishable from the plural sibling concur_list_reports and from the single-entry concur_get_expense without opening either schema.

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 implied by the singular scope and by the schema's note that reportId comes from concur_list_reports, but the description never says when to prefer this over concur_get_expense or concur_get_report_timeline, nor any precondition such as ownership or report state.

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