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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states "Read-only," lists the allowed statuses, specifies the returned field shape, and discloses the deliberate limitation that MCP cannot approve or execute actions. This is comprehensive behavioral transparency.

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 essential purpose, then provides filter details, return shape, and the safety limitation in a compact, well-organized note. No sentence is wasted or redundant.

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 single-optional-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description is fully complete: it states what is listed, how to filter, what each result contains, and the behavioral constraints around approval/execution. Nothing necessary 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by documenting the status parameter's allowed values (proposed / approved / executing / done / failed / dismissed) and explicitly marking it optional, which is exactly the meaning missing from the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "List the key's workspace's proposed actions (the approval queue)." This clearly identifies it as a read-only listing tool and distinguishes it from sibling tools like propose_action, which creates actions rather than listing them.

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 provides clear usage context: it is for viewing the approval queue and optionally filtering by status. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the note that MCP cannot approve or execute actions gives practical guidance on what this tool cannot do.

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