list_expense_reports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does indicate this is a read/list operation and provides useful status code context (0, 2, 4, 5, 6, 99). However, it does not disclose behavior such as pagination, returned fields, filtering semantics beyond status, or potential permissions needed.

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 one concise sentence followed by a compact status legend. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, earning full credit for efficiency and structure.

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, no annotations, and only 25% parameter schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It provides status codes but omits response shape, default behavior, filter syntax for sqlfilters, and any mention of pagination or limits. The tool is list-like but still needs more context to be fully usable.

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 only 25% (user_id is documented). The description adds meaning for the status parameter by listing valid values and their labels, but it leaves limit and sqlfilters completely undocumented. The description only partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 clear verb ('Lister') and resource ('notes de frais'), so the tool's purpose is unmistakable. It does not differentiate from sibling tools such as list_expenses or get_expense_report, but the resource name is specific enough to avoid major ambiguity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_expenses, get_expense_report, or the approval workflow tools. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred use cases beyond the implied action of listing.

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