concur_list_available_receipts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered; the description adds substantive context beyond that by disclosing that returned text is third-party authored and untrusted, with an explicit instruction to treat it as data. Pagination or result-size behavior for the listing is not mentioned, so this stops short of 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what the tool returns, what to do next via named siblings, and the untrusted-data warning. The scope constraint is front-loaded and there is no redundant restatement of the title or 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?

For a zero-required-parameter read-only list with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, follow-on actions, and the prompt-injection hazard. The main omission is result-set behavior (pagination, ordering, typical volume), which an agent listing a receipt store would plausibly need.

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 single optional 'view' parameter is fully documented with its enum semantics in the schema, so the description need not repeat it. The description adds no meaning about view selection or when compact vs full vs raw matters, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List the receipt images in your SAP Concur receipt store") plus the exact scope: uploaded or emailed receipts not attached to any expense. That scope clause distinguishes it cleanly from sibling list tools such as concur_list_available_expenses, so an agent can select 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?

Gives explicit follow-on routing: attach via concur_attach_receipt, download via concur_get_receipt, delete via concur_delete_receipt, which tells the agent this is the discovery step before those mutations. It does not explicitly contrast against other listing siblings (available expenses vs available receipts), which is the only remaining inference.

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