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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it confirms the tool is read-only, cannot approve/execute items, and that each returned action includes an approval_url. This helps the agent set correct expectations without an output schema.

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?

Three tightly scoped sentences: the core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the approval_url detail and a clear read-only warning, then the sibling-tool alternative. Every sentence earns its place and there is 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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, alternative routing, and key returned field (approval_url). Minor gaps like overall response shape or pagination are not critical given the schema documents limit and the annotations cover safety.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well, including the limit default/max and the action_type enum options. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, which is acceptable because the schema carries the full burden.

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 names a specific verb and resource: lists this workspace's one-off MCP messages and connection requests pending human approval. It clearly distinguishes itself from list_pending_approvals by calling out the campaign-draft case, so an agent can identify the right tool without opening the schema.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool versus the sibling list_pending_approvals: campaign message drafts should use that other tool. It also clarifies scope ('this workspace's one-off MCP messages and connection requests') and notes this tool cannot approve or execute actions, preventing misuse.

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