concur_list_trips

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, yet the description still adds material behavior: pagination via `nextToken`, the assurance that this MCP never books/changes/cancels travel, and — most importantly — a prompt-injection warning that returned text is third-party and untrusted. That trust boundary is not expressible in annotations and is exactly the kind of context an agent needs here.

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, front-loaded with the resource and returned fields, then defaults/filters, then the safety and trust notes. No filler or repetition; each clause carries a distinct operational fact.

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?

Nine optional parameters and no output schema, yet the description supplies what the schema cannot: the default time window, the field list the response carries, the paging mechanism, and the third-party-content caveat. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly or safely is missing.

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 enum meanings, date pairing ('needs `from`'), sort defaults, and the `view` shapes are all already documented in the schema. The description restates the filter axes ('trip name, status ... and a date range') and the paging loop ('Paged by `nextToken`') but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the structured fields, so baseline 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('List your SAP Concur Travel trips') and enumerates the returned fields (name, record locator, status, dates, booking kinds, approval). It also routes to the sibling that operates on a single trip ('Use the tripId with concur_get_trip'), so it is separable from concur_get_trip and concur_get_trip_history without opening a 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?

States the default scope ('Upcoming by default'), the two ways to widen it (`when: past` or `all`), the available filters (name, status, date range), and the explicit alternative for single-trip detail (concur_get_trip). When-to-use and which-sibling-to-use are both resolved in the definition itself.

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