concur_get_trip_history

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, yet the description still adds real value: it warns that returned text is authored by third parties and must be treated as data, not instructions, and it lists the concrete event types and that email recipients are included. It stops short of describing volume, ordering, or pagination behavior for what could be a long history.

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?

Roughly three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its event coverage, then the read-only note, then the untrusted-content warning. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 does the right work by sketching the returned events and noting recipients on itinerary emails. Remaining gaps are secondary: no information on result size, ordering, or whether history is paginated for long-lived trips.

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%: tripId's provenance ('tripId from concur_list_trips') and the compact/full/raw view semantics are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Get an SAP Concur Travel trip's history') and enumerates the event categories covered (created, confirmed, approved, rejected, booking changes, itinerary emails). It is clearly distinct from a plain trip lookup, but it never names the sibling concur_get_trip or explains how the two differ, leaving that differentiation to inference.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for lifecycle/audit events rather than current trip details. There is no explicit statement about when to prefer concur_get_trip versus this tool, nor any exclusion or precondition.

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