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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds important behavioral context beyond that: 'Reading does not approve content' clarifies the effect of the call, and it explains pagination semantics (summary counts describe the current page while pagination.total covers all matching batches).

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 action and then adds targeted details in a compact, well-ordered sequence. Every sentence contributes useful information, though the density is high enough that some readers may need to parse it carefully.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description covers key operational aspects (pagination, status, read-only nature, sibling distinction). However, it does not explain the remaining parameters (brand_id, cursor, query) or provide more detail on the shape of returned approval batches, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 only 29% (7 parameters, several undocumented). The description adds meaning for status ('use status=pending'), page/limit (pagination, maximum 50), and workspace_id (required scope), but it leaves brand_id, cursor, and the nested query object unexplained. It partially compensates but does not fully cover the parameter gap.

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 (List) and resource (content approval batches) scoped to workspace_id. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling aidelly_list_pending_approvals, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

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 concrete usage guidance: use status=pending for pending work, and page/limit for pagination. It also names the alternative tool and its scope (post sign-off), which helps selection, though it does not spell out exactly when to choose this tool over the alternative in every case.

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