concur_list_available_expenses

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, open-world operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: rows with empty fields and `missingData` are receipts still being processed rather than errors, and returned third-party text must be treated as data rather than instructions. It does not cover pagination behavior, but the schema handles the parameters and the tool is read-only.

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?

The description is three sentences and front-loaded: purpose and scope first, then the `missingData` caveat, then the trust warning. Every sentence adds operational value 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?

For a simple read-only listing tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the data sources, explains the partial-row edge case, and warns about untrusted returned text. The remaining gap is that it does not explicitly route the agent to sibling tools for receipts, reports, or expense retrieval.

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 page, size, and view parameters are documented in detail in the schema, including the compact/full/raw/brief response shapes. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the 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 states a specific verb and resource — listing SAP Concur available expenses — and enumerates what counts as an available expense (card transactions, e-receipts, mobile captures, quick expenses) plus the scope constraint that they are not yet on a report. It does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings such as concur_list_available_receipts or concur_get_expense, but the resource and scope are clear.

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 'not on any report yet' framing, which tells an agent this is for pre-report expenses. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and alternatives such as concur_list_available_receipts or concur_move_available_expenses_to_report are not named.

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