concur_graphql_query

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: it refuses any document containing a mutation or subscription anywhere, refuses unparseable documents, notes introspection is disabled, and states the return is the raw `data`. It also carries a prompt-injection warning about third-party-authored response text, though it does not mention rate limits or pagination limits.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and safety constraints before the endpoint reference material, and each sentence carries operational information. It is dense and somewhat long, with the spend/cds endpoint text duplicated from the schema, which is the main redundancy.

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?

For a high-flexibility escape-hatch tool with no output schema, it covers everything an agent needs: what is accepted/rejected, how to discover valid operations, which endpoint to target, what the return looks like ('the GraphQL `data` as-is'), and how to treat untrusted response text.

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%, so the schema already defines `query`, `endpoint` (with enum and default), and `variables`; the description largely repeats the endpoint mapping verbatim. It does add value for `query` semantics ('exactly one query plus any fragments it spreads') and indirectly for `variables` (pass the real userId from concur_whoami, contextRole TRAVELER), so it lands at the baseline rather than above it.

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 ('Run a raw read-only GraphQL query against SAP Concur') and frames its role as 'the escape hatch for data no dedicated tool returns', which distinguishes it from both the dedicated list/get tools and concur_graphql_mutation in the sibling set.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (data no dedicated tool returns), explicit when-not with the alternative named ('use concur_graphql_mutation for writes'), a routing rule ('Prefer a dedicated tool when concur_list_operations names one'), and workflow guidance to discover operation names via concur_list_operations and the docs/api/ files.

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