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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those: the newest-first ordering, the returned fields, the credential/audit read scope requirement, and the 403 behavior until a workspace is claimed.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds filtering guidance, prerequisites, and workspace constraints. Every sentence carries useful information with 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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, ordering, return fields, filtering semantics, next-step routing, auth scope, and workspace-claim requirements. Nothing critical 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic meaning for the status parameter by explaining that 'pending' lists items awaiting a decision and that the returned id feeds decide_approval.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List the actions held for approval'), adds scope ('in your workspace'), ordering ('newest first'), and the fields returned. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_approval and decide_approval.

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?

It gives clear context for using the status filter ('status pending lists what waits for a decision') and explicitly routes the next step to decide_approval. It does not explicitly contrast with get_approval, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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