approve_expense_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'approuver' (approve) but does not disclose side effects, prerequisites beyond validation, permission requirements, or what happens to the report's state. The verb implies a state change but offers no further transparency, leaving significant gaps.

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 a single concise sentence, 'Approuver une note de frais validée', which is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly efficient with no wasted text.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally viable: it conveys the action and a key condition (validated). However, it lacks behavioral details and does not explain what information the 'id' should refer to, so the agent may still have questions. This is adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the 'id' parameter or provide any guidance on how to specify it. While the tool name makes it plausible that 'id' is the expense report ID, the description does not compensate for the lack of schema details. With only one parameter, adding a brief note would have been easy, but it is absent.

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 uses a specific verb 'Approuver' (approve) with a clear resource 'note de frais' (expense report) and adds the qualifier 'validée' (validated), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_expense_report and refuse_expense_report. It clearly states what the tool does and the target object.

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?

The qualifier 'validée' provides clear context that this tool is for expense reports that have already been validated, implying it should be used after validation. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are given, but the condition 'validated' itself serves as a usage guideline. This is clear context without formal exclusions, matching a score of 4.

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