xero_list_expense_claims

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 mentions the list operation and optional filtering, but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation (though implied by 'List'), doesn't describe pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or the format/scope of returned data. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List expense claims') and immediately adds the optional filter detail. There is no wasted verbiage, and every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's functionality.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a list tool. It covers the basic action and filter, but misses key contextual elements: it doesn't explain what data is returned (e.g., claim fields, pagination), error conditions, or how it fits into broader workflows with siblings like xero_create_expense_claim. The agent lacks sufficient information to use this tool effectively in complex scenarios.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'status' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by restating the filter option and listing status values, but doesn't provide additional context like default behavior when no filter is applied or how filtering interacts with other potential constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'expense claims', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from other list tools (like xero_list_accounts, xero_list_bank_accounts) by specifying the resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from xero_get_expense_claim (which retrieves a single claim), so it's not fully sibling-aware.

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 through the optional filter by status, suggesting this tool is for retrieving expense claims with possible status filtering. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. xero_get_expense_claim (for single claims) or other list tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is limited to the filter functionality.

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