concur_get_report_timeline

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the grouping structure (by day), that the audit trail spans report and expense level, and — most importantly — that returned text is third-party and untrusted, which is direct prompt-injection guidance not available anywhere else.

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 core resource and scope; parentheses and em-dashes are used to pack in detail without breaking flow. The untrusted-data warning is worth its words, though the first sentence is dense enough that it could be split for scanability.

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 content, and it does: comments, workflow events with examples, day grouping, and an audit trail with actor/time/level. Combined with the fully documented view parameter, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it correctly.

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% and the view enum's compact/full/raw semantics are fully spelled out in the schema itself. The description adds only light framing ('grouped by day', audit trail topics) that helps interpret what the view modes will return, which is a modest but genuine supplement to the schema.

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 (get) and a precisely scoped resource (a single report's timeline: comments, workflow events, and audit trail), with the constituent data types enumerated. This is clearly distinguishable from concur_get_report (current report state) and concur_add_report_comment (write), so an agent can pick it without opening the 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?

The description makes the use case clear: retrieving history/activity on a specific report rather than the report itself. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as concur_get_report or say when *not* to use it, so it stops short of a full routing statement.

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