validate_expense_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the action transitions the expense report to an 'awaiting approval' state via 'submit for approval', which adds context beyond just saying 'validate'. However, it does not mention permissions, irreversibility, or further side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the verb and resource, with a helpful explanatory clause. It is concise and contains no filler.

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 adequate. It tells the primary purpose and adds the submission context, but it does not clarify the resulting status, nor does it mention the difference from 'approve_expense_report' or any prerequisites. This leaves some 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 explain the single required parameter 'id'. While it is likely obvious that 'id' refers to the expense report ID, the description adds no parameter semantics beyond the raw schema, and the low coverage is not compensated.

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 clearly states the action ('Valider une note de frais' - validate an expense report) and adds the parenthetical 'la soumettre pour approbation' (submit it for approval), which clarifies the exact purpose and distinguishes it from the sibling 'approve_expense_report' tool.

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 description implies usage (when you need to submit an expense report for approval), but it does not explicitly contrast this with alternatives like 'approve_expense_report' or state when not to use it. The parenthetical gives context but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative pointers.

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