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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discharges it: it declares read-only semantics, states the hard MCP boundary (read and propose only — never approve or run; a human does that in the app), specifies ordering (newest first), and discloses the failure mode (a single {error} row when actions are disabled). That is unusually complete for a mutation-adjacent tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then scoped usage, then behavior, then return shape — a sensible ordering. Slightly denser than needed (the inline return-field list and error-row caveat lengthen it), but every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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?

Covers the gaps an agent would hit: the queue is workspace-scoped, ordering is newest-first, external_id's meaning is explained, and the disabled-account path is flagged. With one optional parameter and an output schema present, nothing needed for correct invocation 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% and the status parameter is fully documented with all six values plus the empty-string default, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description conveys the filtering intent ('what is already waiting' implies status=proposed) but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema. 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 workspace's approval queue: actions proposed for a person to approve' — and immediately frames the queue as distinct from the sibling propose_action (the filing side). An agent can distinguish it from propose_action, list_pages, and list_skills without opening any 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance with a named counterpart: check the queue before calling propose_action to avoid filing duplicates, or verify a prior proposal was approved and done. The alternative (propose_action) and the condition selecting each are stated outright.

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