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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond that: results are ordered newest first, approvers appear in order, and the response additionally includes the pool of people who can open the flow and therefore act as approvers — a non-obvious return characteristic.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and ordering, then the extra return content. Efficient, though the second sentence's phrasing ('and so can be approvers') is slightly roundabout.

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, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so (ordering, approver sequence, status, candidate approvers). It omits pagination/result limits and whether only pending approvals or all historical approvals are returned.

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?

Only one parameter (flow_id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description confirms the approvals belong to a Wavelength flow but adds no syntax, format, or sourcing guidance for the id. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the approvals on a Wavelength flow') and adds real scope detail: newest-first ordering, per-approver ordering, and status. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings like decide_approval, request_approval, or get_flow, so it stops short of a 5.

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 never says when to reach for this tool versus decide_approval, request_approval, or get_flow, nor does it state any prerequisite (e.g. that the caller must be able to view the flow). Usage is only inferable from the verb.

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