concur_list_operations

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

The description adds real behavior beyond the annotations: it is local/offline ('no call to Concur') and it discloses that concur_graphql_mutation refuses some listed operations — a constraint the agent must know before choosing a tool. The local-data note partly restates openWorldHint=false, so it is useful but not wholly additive.

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 the verb and resource, then a dense field list that earns its place because there is no output schema. The single long first sentence is packed but not padded; nothing is redundant.

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 fully specifies what comes back, and it names the offline nature, the source of the data (public bundles), and where verbatim text lives. An agent has everything needed to call it and to act on the result.

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% with enum values for kind and endpoint, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description mentions the same concepts (name, endpoint spend|cds, query or mutation) as returned fields rather than as filters, adding only marginal semantics over 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?

Specific verb + resource: 'List the GraphQL operations the SAP Concur web app uses', followed by an explicit enumeration of the fields returned (name, endpoint, kind, purpose, owning tool, refusal status, docs file). It is clearly distinguishable from concur_graphql_query / concur_graphql_mutation, which execute operations rather than catalogue them.

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?

States the use case outright ('Use it to find shapes for concur_graphql_query / concur_graphql_mutation') and instructs the agent to prefer the dedicated tool when one exists for an operation. Both the when-to-use and the fallback routing are explicit.

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