concur_list_reports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: it discloses the projection shape of the result set and the reportId-to-get_report chaining pattern. It does not discuss rate limits, page-boundary behavior, or total-count semantics, which keeps it below 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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the capability and returned fields front-loaded before the filter options and the sibling hand-off. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 read-only paginated list with no output schema, enumerating the returned fields in the description is the right compensation and it is done. Minor gaps remain: default sort order and whether paging past the last page errors or returns empty are not stated.

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% and the view parameter already carries a rich explanation of compact/full/raw in the schema. The description repeats the status enum values without adding meaning and never mentions view, page, or size, so it adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 your SAP Concur expense reports") and enumerates the fields returned (name, number, dates, approval and payment status, totals, approver). The follow-up sentence naming concur_get_report as the drill-down makes it distinguishable from the many get_* siblings.

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 clear operating context: filter by status, optional report-date range, results are paged, and the returned reportId feeds concur_get_report. It lacks an explicit when-not clause (e.g., use concur_list_trips for travel), but the routing to concur_get_report covers the main ambiguity.

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